Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[FA_Q2]

Sorry please forgive me for this comment,that is down right ignorance to suggest creationists are less educated and did not have access to all data related to the theory.

Let me ask you something, does it matter if information i provide is in my own words over someone elses words ?

The thing is if i truly had the time i would put everything in my own words, and sometimes i do but when i get on here i am in a hurry.

It's true though. If you can look at the overwhelming mountain of evidence about the age of the earth (we don't even have to speak about evolution here) and conclude it is seven days you are uneducated and ignorant.

You are either un-willingly ignorant, because you haven't been formally taught or taken the time to read up on the matter.

Or, you are willfully ignorant, because you have been taught but simply choose to ignore scientific evidence because the larger implications are inconvenient to your religious beliefs.

Either way, it speaks to a lack of education.

I think it is a great argument, houses and cars and that supercomputer is a product of design. Those things are a product of design. Medicine designed. There is enormous amounts of evidence for design, very few products that happen through a natural process.

Everyone knows that matter left to itself does nothing. It has to have an outside influence to bring about action.

Again, since none of the items you referenced self-replicate, it is a non-sequitur to try and use this to argue in favor of design.

Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.

1. Evolution is a fact

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution

3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution

4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity

5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

6. It's here,so it must have evolved

7. Natural selection is evolution

8. common design means common ancesrty

9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

10. Mutations drive evolution

11. The scopes trial

12. Science Vs. religion

You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.

Why not simply truncate your list to one point:
1. All evidence that evolution is a valid and correct theory

That is essentially what you are trying to do here. The fact remains that evolution is based in evidence and some of that evidence has already been presented to you by Geauxtohell all of which you have steadfastly ignored. If you want to move this forward why have you not addressed any of it? This argument has been rehashed a thousand times here on USMB and yet I have not seen ONE person leave anything that relates to creationism as a valid theory and very little that disputes evolution. What it comes down to is that creationism is a product of FAITH and belongs in the realm of religion. It has ZERO to do with science and should not form the basis of one's scientific theories. Just look at your sources: evidence in GENESIS!!! Just to let you know, the bible and those that are using it to form scientific theory ARE NOT VALID SOURCES. PERIOD. Evolution on the other hand, is a theory born out of scientific research and observation. It has gone under countless years of tweaking and refining to come out with what we have today and been changed many times from new data. Creationism remains the same and forces the DATA to fit into the concept rather than making the theory fit the data. Using dating techniques is a stark example of this. Where evolution uses the data gathered to refine the theory creationism takes that dating methods are incorrect and giving false numbers based NOT ON FACT BUT BECAUSE THE NUMBERS DO NOT AGREE WITH THE THEORY. Science is NOT making data fit theories but making theories fit data. BTW, ID is just another word for creationism so they can be used interchangeably.

Again, mixing the big bang theory and the origin of life into evolution also shown the difference here from ID as a faith based answer from evolution as a science one. You seem to think that a theory in one field must necessarily be able to explain all faucets within all fields that deal with it and that is most certainly NOT true. One of the paramount bases in science is the need for the answer 'I do not know.' Faith does not allow that because faith must have the answer ready made as there is no additions or changes allowed to the theory. As such ID can simply state God made it for the origins of all things but science, with a lack of evidence for any theory, must default to I do not know and maybe we can find the answer later with more knowledge/experimentation. There is nothing wrong with the belief in ID or that someday evolution may well turn out to be false but there is something massively wrong with turning ID into a pseudo science and trying to force evolution to be incorrect by misrepresenting data and basing it on faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's true though. If you can look at the overwhelming mountain of evidence about the age of the earth (we don't even have to speak about evolution here) and conclude it is seven days you are uneducated and ignorant.

You are either un-willingly ignorant, because you haven't been formally taught or taken the time to read up on the matter.

Or, you are willfully ignorant, because you have been taught but simply choose to ignore scientific evidence because the larger implications are inconvenient to your religious beliefs.

Either way, it speaks to a lack of education.



Again, since none of the items you referenced self-replicate, it is a non-sequitur to try and use this to argue in favor of design.

Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.

1. Evolution is a fact

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution

3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution

4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity

5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

6. It's here,so it must have evolved

7. Natural selection is evolution

8. common design means common ancesrty

9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

10. Mutations drive evolution

11. The scopes trial

12. Science Vs. religion

You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.

Why not simply truncate your list to one point:
1. All evidence that evolution is a valid and correct theory

That is essentially what you are trying to do here. The fact remains that evolution is based in evidence and some of that evidence has already been presented to you by Geauxtohell all of which you have steadfastly ignored. If you want to move this forward why have you not addressed any of it? This argument has been rehashed a thousand times here on USMB and yet I have not seen ONE person leave anything that relates to creationism as a valid theory and very little that disputes evolution. What it comes down to is that creationism is a product of FAITH and belongs in the realm of religion. It has ZERO to do with science and should not form the basis of one's scientific theories. Just look at your sources: evidence in GENESIS!!! Just to let you know, the bible and those that are using it to form scientific theory ARE NOT VALID SOURCES. PERIOD. Evolution on the other hand, is a theory born out of scientific research and observation. It has gone under countless years of tweaking and refining to come out with what we have today and been changed many times from new data. Creationism remains the same and forces the DATA to fit into the concept rather than making the theory fit the data. Using dating techniques is a stark example of this. Where evolution uses the data gathered to refine the theory creationism takes that dating methods are incorrect and giving false numbers based NOT ON FACT BUT BECAUSE THE NUMBERS DO NOT AGREE WITH THE THEORY. Science is NOT making data fit theories but making theories fit data. BTW, ID is just another word for creationism so they can be used interchangeably.

Again, mixing the big bang theory and the origin of life into evolution also shown the difference here from ID as a faith based answer from evolution as a science one. You seem to think that a theory in one field must necessarily be able to explain all faucets within all fields that deal with it and that is most certainly NOT true. One of the paramount bases in science is the need for the answer 'I do not know.' Faith does not allow that because faith must have the answer ready made as there is no additions or changes allowed to the theory. As such ID can simply state God made it for the origins of all things but science, with a lack of evidence for any theory, must default to I do not know and maybe we can find the answer later with more knowledge/experimentation. There is nothing wrong with the belief in ID or that someday evolution may well turn out to be false but there is something massively wrong with turning ID into a pseudo science and trying to force evolution to be incorrect by misrepresenting data and basing it on faith.

Does creation have to be a valid theory for you to reject the theory of evolution? I admit that no one was present to see the beginning of life so how can we know for sure whether it was God or a natural process at work ? The only evidence presented here in this thread is considered to be Micro-evolution not Macro-evolution. Now consider Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max they seem to agree between the differences in Macro and Micro evolution.



I don't believe theories just because it's the only theory we have, heck ,hick said present a better argument and he would except it ,so i don't believe most evolutionist are convinced of this modern day theory that is taught at the present but give it time it will evolve.

A House Divided
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.


A fascinating new book1 has recently been published in England with the intriguing title, The Darwin Wars. The author, Andrew Brown, though himself an atheistic evolutionist, in 1995 won the Templeton Prize as the best religious affairs correspondent in Europe.

The title of his book does not refer to the long warfare between evolutionists and creationists, as one might first suppose, but rather to the internecine battles between various groups of evolutionists against each other. Although they close ranks when doing battle with creationists, they wrangle bitterly among themselves.

The most publicized battle at present is between the neo-Darwinians and the punctuationists. Richard Dawkins (of Cambridge University in England) is the best-known protagonist for the neo-Darwinists and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University for the punctuationists.

These two parties need names, and I propose to call them Gouldians and Dawkinsians.2
Like the gingham dog and the calico cat, these two groups seem bent on eating each other up. The Gouldians argue vigorously that the fossil record proves that evolution did not occur slowly and gradually and progressively, as neo-Darwinianism requires. The Dawkinsians, on the other hand, insist vehemently that there is no possibility genetically that sudden evolution after long periods of "stasis" (i.e., no change) could ever happen at all, as the punctuationists allege. Both are right!

One prominent Gouldian makes the following flat assertion that paleontology proves stasis, followed by wide extinction events, followed by rapid evolution of new kinds.

I make the very strong claim that nothing much happens in biological evolutionary history until extinction claims what has come before.3
This scenario then postulates that rapid evolution suddenly generates a new complex of flora and fauna to fill the vacant ecological niches.

But there is no biological mechanism that can do such marvelous things. Dawkins had correctly pointed out the following fact:

Complexity cannot spring up in a single stroke of chance. . . . Gradualness is of the essence. . . . If you throw out gradualness, you throw out the very thing that makes evolution more plausible than creation.4
And so Gouldians and Dawkinsians are actually (although unintentionally) helping to prove creationism, one disproving gradualism, the other disproving punctuationism. The house of evolution is badly, and eventually fatally, divided.

Niles Eldredge, the partner of Gould in their notion of stasis and punctuated equilibrium, has acknowledged this internal warfare.

Geneticists and paleontologists are still very much at each other's throats.5
Since evolution and creation are really worldviews, these battles among biologists also involve sociological and psychological controversies. Modern sociobiology, for example, tends to correlate with neo-Darwinism and social Darwinism while Marxist movements with their penchant for revolution, tend to favor punctuationism. Edward O. Wilson, a colleague of Gould's at Harvard, is considered the world leader in sociobiology (the application of animal behaviors to human societies). His followers and those of Gould have been involved in serious clashes.

One of these took place in the hallowed halls of Harvard University itself, involving a group of Gouldians in a Marxist club euphemistically named "Science for the People."

The supporters of Science for the People were quite happy to intimidate their opponents. In the worst incident, a group of black student protestors mounted the platform at a scientific meeting where Gould and Wilson were debating and drenched Wilson (who had a broken leg at the time) with water. . . . They then chanted, "Wilson, you're wet!" for a while.6
Remember that both Edward Wilson (along with most of his sociobiologist disciples) and Stephen Gould (with most other advocates of punctuated equilibrium) are doctrinaire atheists and anti-creationists. Although they can be bitter antagonists within evolutionism, they are of one mind in opposition to God and creation.

A notorious comment by John Maynard Smith pointed this fact out beautifully. Smith is an eminent British neo-Darwinist, who was a mentor of Richard Dawkins. With respect to Gould, he had the following to say:

Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by non-geologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists.7
Another notorious debate involving Gould was with Steven Pinker, an evolutionary linguist and sociobiologist at M.I.T. Science writer Martin Brookes gives us the background.

The dispute over evolutionary psychology is just the latest incarnation of the nature/nurture debate . . . Pinker has joined the high-profile team of Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. . . . Gould stands on the opposite side of the ideological fence. . . .8
The comments of Brookes about the debate itself are fascinating.

For an argument about science, you would be hard pressed to find an exchange of views so full of hollow rhetoric, pompous quotations and insults. . . . The spat between Pinker and Gould . . . has no apparent function other than intellectual one-upmanship. It is precisely because there is so little evidence for either of their views that they can get away with so much speculation and disagreement.9
Brookes seems to agree with us creationists (though he would probably be appalled at such a suggestion!) that there is "so little evidence" for either neo-Darwinism or punctuationism, that both have to rely on "hollow rhetoric, pompous quotations and insults" to defend their beliefs.

Another combatant in the internal wars among evolutionary biologists is the growing body of evolutionary pantheists, who admit there is much evidence of intelligent design in living things, but then maintain that this is the result of Gaia, or cosmic consciousness, or Mother Nature, or anything other than a personal Creator. One of the most articulate leaders of this group is Lynn Margulis, who is especially critical of such neo-Darwinists as Richard Dawkins, John Maynard-Smith, and others of like faith.

Neo-Darwinian language and conceptual structure itself ensures scientific failure. Major questions posed by zoologists cannot be answered from within the neo-Darwinist straitjacket.10
Then quoting Gabriel Dover, she agrees that:

The study of evolution should be removed from teleological computer simulations, thought experiments and wrong-headed juggling of probabilities . . . the neo-Darwinist synthesis should not be defended to death by blind watchmakers.11
The last phrase is a reference to Richard Dawkins famous book, The Blind Watchmaker.

If space permitted, these internal squabbles among biologists could be elaborated at great length. Similar bitter in-house arguments are common among evolutionary geologists and evolutionary astronomers. But they all stand united against creationism! Otherwise they would have to believe in God and a future judgment, and this they are all unwilling to face.

We who do believe in God, creation, judgment, and redemption by Christ, can at least remind them of the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "If a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand" (Mark 3:24,25). Some day, the House of Evolution will fall, "and great (shall be) the fall of it" (Matthew 7:27).

I have admitted my view is based on faith,and i admit evolutionist are seeing things but what i don't agree with is their explanations of the evidence. Evolutionists are truly trying to discredit the thought of God it's a movement and that is why they continue to explain the natural process as they do.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's true though. If you can look at the overwhelming mountain of evidence about the age of the earth (we don't even have to speak about evolution here) and conclude it is seven days you are uneducated and ignorant.

You are either un-willingly ignorant, because you haven't been formally taught or taken the time to read up on the matter.

Or, you are willfully ignorant, because you have been taught but simply choose to ignore scientific evidence because the larger implications are inconvenient to your religious beliefs.

Either way, it speaks to a lack of education.



Again, since none of the items you referenced self-replicate, it is a non-sequitur to try and use this to argue in favor of design.

Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.

1. Evolution is a fact

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution

3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution

4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity

5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

6. It's here,so it must have evolved

7. Natural selection is evolution

8. common design means common ancesrty

9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

10. Mutations drive evolution

11. The scopes trial

12. Science Vs. religion

You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.

Why not simply truncate your list to one point:
1. All evidence that evolution is a valid and correct theory

That is essentially what you are trying to do here. The fact remains that evolution is based in evidence and some of that evidence has already been presented to you by Geauxtohell all of which you have steadfastly ignored. If you want to move this forward why have you not addressed any of it? This argument has been rehashed a thousand times here on USMB and yet I have not seen ONE person leave anything that relates to creationism as a valid theory and very little that disputes evolution. What it comes down to is that creationism is a product of FAITH and belongs in the realm of religion. It has ZERO to do with science and should not form the basis of one's scientific theories. Just look at your sources: evidence in GENESIS!!! Just to let you know, the bible and those that are using it to form scientific theory ARE NOT VALID SOURCES. PERIOD. Evolution on the other hand, is a theory born out of scientific research and observation. It has gone under countless years of tweaking and refining to come out with what we have today and been changed many times from new data. Creationism remains the same and forces the DATA to fit into the concept rather than making the theory fit the data. Using dating techniques is a stark example of this. Where evolution uses the data gathered to refine the theory creationism takes that dating methods are incorrect and giving false numbers based NOT ON FACT BUT BECAUSE THE NUMBERS DO NOT AGREE WITH THE THEORY. Science is NOT making data fit theories but making theories fit data. BTW, ID is just another word for creationism so they can be used interchangeably.

Again, mixing the big bang theory and the origin of life into evolution also shown the difference here from ID as a faith based answer from evolution as a science one. You seem to think that a theory in one field must necessarily be able to explain all faucets within all fields that deal with it and that is most certainly NOT true. One of the paramount bases in science is the need for the answer 'I do not know.' Faith does not allow that because faith must have the answer ready made as there is no additions or changes allowed to the theory. As such ID can simply state God made it for the origins of all things but science, with a lack of evidence for any theory, must default to I do not know and maybe we can find the answer later with more knowledge/experimentation. There is nothing wrong with the belief in ID or that someday evolution may well turn out to be false but there is something massively wrong with turning ID into a pseudo science and trying to force evolution to be incorrect by misrepresenting data and basing it on faith.

If what you say is true why the conflicting views between Neo-darwinism and Punctuated equilibrium ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

1. Evolution is a fact

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution

3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution

4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity

5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

6. It's here,so it must have evolved

7. Natural selection is evolution

8. common design means common ancesrty

9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

10. Mutations drive evolution

11. The scopes trial

12. Science Vs. religion

1. 1. Evolution is a fact

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution

3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution

4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity

5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

6. It's here,so it must have evolved

7. Natural selection is evolution

8. common design means common ancesrty

9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

10. Mutations drive evolution

11. The scopes trial

12. Science Vs. religion

1.Evolution is a fact
When our core beliefs are attacked, it’s often easy for humans to retreat to statements such as this: “My belief is a fact, and yours is wrong.” Man cannot be trusted with always providing truth when our emotions are at play, we have seen this in this thread.

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution
Besides the arrogance of such statements, this argument has no footing and should be cast off. Mainly, those who make this claim usually define “educated people” as those who accept evolution. Anyone who disagrees fails the test, no matter what their background , if we follow this ideology, Isaac Newton must have been uneducated. There are many lists of well educated creationists.

3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution
The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true the evidence supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed moving from the Bible, God’s Word, to humanism, man’s word. Creationists continue to see everything in light of God’s Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no “neutral” starting point, everyone—whether they acknowledge it or not interprets the “facts” according to a particular way of thinking in other words, worldview.

4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
Why does this argument fail? I’ll show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. That’s gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism like an amoeba turn into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.

5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
Ironically, the Bible describes the earth as round and hanging in space long before this could have been directly observed Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22. The appeal of this claim is that it stereotypes creationists as stuck in the past, since the common assumption is that people once universally believed the earth was flat before science “proved” otherwise which wasn’t the caseonly a few bought into the idea that the earth was flat.

6. It’s here, so it must have evolved
A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is four, we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless.

7. Natural selection is evolution
This is likely the most abused argument on the list and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules to man evolution. However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything “new.” The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive.

8. Common design means common ancestry
Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans homology, for example, do not prove common descent that’s an assumption. A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better.

9, Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
Sedimentary layers show one thing, sedimentary layers. In other words, we can and should study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point, such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions.

10. Mutations drive evolution
Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires not even close. Some may benefit an organism , beetles on a windy island losing wings, but virtually every time mutations come with a cost. see give and take on this issue between Dr. Spetner and Dr. Max.

11. The Scopes trial
Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this, Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common though completely flawed perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different account.

12. Science vs. religion
News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common meme presents science and religion as opposing forces reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but it’s bunk. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within and, in fact, requires a God created universe. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to do science in the first place.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The true problem is people who believe in a creator come from the view "God did it" and evolutionist come from a worldly view that "God didn't do it" and because you can't explain God and he has not revealed himself to you,you turn to a natural process. You just can't admit it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

For those of you who have not had a chance to see a Dr. from both sides go at it, this is a must read.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

 

[konradv]

Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.

1. Evolution is a fact

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution

3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution

4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity

5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

6. It's here,so it must have evolved

7. Natural selection is evolution

8. common design means common ancesrty

9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

10. Mutations drive evolution

11. The scopes trial

12. Science Vs. religion

You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.

Why? Because you have no valid answers for most of those questions? If you're going to be a wuss about it, hit the road.

Is this like your first post in this thread ?

So what? Scared? You'd reached a level of foolishness that couldn't be ignored. How's that?

 

[konradv]

The true problem is people who believe in a creator come from the view "God did it" and evolutionist come from a worldly view that "God didn't do it" and because you can't explain God and he has not revealed himself to you,you turn to a natural process. You just can't admit it.

No it's because, if you don't believe in evolution, you have to explain why you don't find trilobite fossils in the same geological strata as dolphin fossils. The fossil record shows evolution over time. IMO, the only other explanation from the creatioist/ID perspective is that God messes with our minds. Is that what you'd really have us believe? I think you need to lay out exactly how the fossil record came about, if evolution wasn't the driving force before we can consider any of your other points valid..

 

[FA_Q2]

If what you say is true why the conflicting views between Neo-darwinism and Punctuated equilibrium ?

Because that is the nature of science. Unlike faith, science is ever changing and becoming more refined. Unlike the faithful who claim to have all the answers at the get go science thrives in an atmosphere of conflicting ideas. If evolution were a place where there could be no argument, experimentation or refinement it would be faith and not science. It is science so that is not the case.

The true problem is people who believe in a creator come from the view "God did it" and evolutionist come from a worldly view that "God didn't do it" and because you can't explain God and he has not revealed himself to you,you turn to a natural process. You just can't admit it.

And therein lies your problem. Because YOU prescribe to a view that 'god did it' you must project that a scientist has the same problem of a predisposition to a particular answer but fail to realize that IS NOT THE CASE. Nowhere has anyone refuted that god did not do it anyway, it just happens that the process that it came to pass is most likely evolution and not grand design in a blink. Science does not deal in the supernatural and does not refute or strive to prove it either way. What science does do is try and find natural laws and occurrences to better understand our surroundings. I have already gone over this but you seem to prefer to ignore it. The evidence shows that evolution is the means that modern oganisms came to pass and just because you choose to ignore that evidence does not make evolution incorrect. Address the evidence of you want to refute the theory. This, you have failed to do.

3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution
The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true the evidence supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed moving from the Bible, God’s Word, to humanism, man’s word. Creationists continue to see everything in light of God’s Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no “neutral” starting point, everyone—whether they acknowledge it or not interprets the “facts” according to a particular way of thinking in other words, worldview.

Really? You do not believe that there has been any new evidence in the last 100 years that shows evolution to be true? It is ALL due to the shift of using the bible to using science? the truth is, of course, you are right that there has been a shift from hiding behind the 'god did it and that is the way it is' to actually attempting to understand the world. This is a good thing and has brought you wonders like refrigeration, medicine and cars. Or you could just go back to lightning exists because Thor is angry and leave it at that. That IS what ID'ers want. A return to simply god did it and we are not to question the how or why. That is not what science is all about though and not a good basis to set your beliefs on.

6. It’s here, so it must have evolved
A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is four, we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless.

Funny enough, that is EXACTLY what ID states and the core of those beliefs. On the other hand, evolution in no way resorts to that kind of asinine argument. It uses EVIDENCE. There is that annoying little word again.

8. Common design means common ancestry
Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans homology, for example, do not prove common descent that’s an assumption. A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better.

That's where genetics fits in as it fits the common ancestry theory perfectly. I would refer you back to the excellent video that Geauxtohell put up here and its reference to us and the great apes but you most likely did not watch it.

9, Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
Sedimentary layers show one thing, sedimentary layers. In other words, we can and should study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point, such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions.

And then you opened your eyes and realized there are MANY ways to date things and they align with sedimentary dating and that there has been a lot of inquiry to this form of dating. This is not some grand assumption that causes these methods to be used but rather it has been shown to be effective. It has its problems but has been shown to be quite useful. Simply dismissing it based on all the facts that you gave (none) is rather dumb.

11. The Scopes trial
Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this, Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common though completely flawed perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different account.

Honestly, a law trial has no bearing on the case at hand anyway as law is not what defines scientific theory. So, yes, it is valid to ignore this argument on your list.

12. Science vs. religion
News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common meme presents science and religion as opposing forces reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but it’s bunk. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within and, in fact, requires a God created universe. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to do science in the first place.

No, science does not require a god created universe and that is a rather dumb thing to say. As it goes, science and religion have nothing to do with one another whatsoever. Science is the study of the natural and religion is the belief in the supernatural. The realms are separate and as such there is no interaction between the two. Science does not preclude religion nor does it rely on it.

A an aside, you may challenge evolution in science and say there is another route that life took and even go as far to say that is un unknown but you cannot replace evolution with ID from a scientific point of view. As far as challenging it though, the evidence would be strongly against you.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Does creation have to be a valid theory for you to reject the theory of evolution? I admit that no one was present to see the beginning of life so how can we know for sure whether it was God or a natural process at work ?

No one was around to witness the big bang, and yet there's still evidence of it. You weren't around to witness meteors hitting the moon yet it still has all those craters. You weren't around to see Mt. Rushmore being built, so surely you must attribute it to God? Ridiculous. If you are so limited on this earth to only believe the things you directly see and the things someone else tells you is true without evidence or scrutiny, you are ignorant.

I don't believe theories just because it's the only theory we have, heck ,hick said present a better argument and he would except it ,so i don't believe most evolutionist are convinced of this modern day theory that is taught at the present but give it time it will evolve.

Once again you warp an otherwise innocent remark. Science has the capacity to change its worldview based on new evidence, whereas religion does not. That DOES NOT mean that the theory of evolution is unsatisfactory or leaving anyone wanting more. It simply means that it would be any logical person's obligation to follow truth and evidence rather than being stubborn and ignorant.

Can you truly not make an honest point on your own? You are really starting to further tarnish your religion as a representative of it. Have you no morals?

The title of his book does not refer to the long warfare between evolutionists and creationists, as one might first suppose, but rather to the internecine battles between various groups of evolutionists against each other. Although they close ranks when doing battle with creationists, they wrangle bitterly among themselves.

More copied and pasted nonsense failing to show a disruption in the tenants of evolution because scientists argue about topics in the field. Despite the disagreement, EVERYONE agrees that evolution is correct, and how it's correct. It's like two Christians arguing whether the King James version or a newly translated version is a better bible. It doesn't mean they disagree on Christianity.

I have admitted my view is based on faith,and i admit evolutionist are seeing things but what i don't agree with is their explanations of the evidence. Evolutionists are truly trying to discredit the thought of God it's a movement and that is why they continue to explain the natural process as they do.

Evolution has no purpose in addressing religion either way. It's the creationists who bring that up. Nonetheless you say you don't agree with the explanation for the evidence, yet it's clear you won't acknowledge the evidence exists, can't say WHY you disagree with the explanation of the evidence, and can't even propose some other explanation for the evidence. How foolish.

1. Evolution is a fact

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution

3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution

4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity

5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

6. It's here,so it must have evolved

7. Natural selection is evolution

8. common design means common ancesrty

9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

10. Mutations drive evolution

11. The scopes trial

12. Science Vs. religion

1. 1. Evolution is a fact

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution

3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution

4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity

5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

6. It's here,so it must have evolved

7. Natural selection is evolution

8. common design means common ancesrty

9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

10. Mutations drive evolution

11. The scopes trial

12. Science Vs. religion

1.Evolution is a fact
When our core beliefs are attacked, it’s often easy for humans to retreat to statements such as this: “My belief is a fact, and yours is wrong.” Man cannot be trusted with always providing truth when our emotions are at play, we have seen this in this thread.

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution
Besides the arrogance of such statements, this argument has no footing and should be cast off. Mainly, those who make this claim usually define “educated people” as those who accept evolution. Anyone who disagrees fails the test, no matter what their background , if we follow this ideology, Isaac Newton must have been uneducated. There are many lists of well educated creationists.

3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution
The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true the evidence supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed moving from the Bible, God’s Word, to humanism, man’s word. Creationists continue to see everything in light of God’s Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no “neutral” starting point, everyone—whether they acknowledge it or not interprets the “facts” according to a particular way of thinking in other words, worldview.

4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
Why does this argument fail? I’ll show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. That’s gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism like an amoeba turn into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.

5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
Ironically, the Bible describes the earth as round and hanging in space long before this could have been directly observed Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22. The appeal of this claim is that it stereotypes creationists as stuck in the past, since the common assumption is that people once universally believed the earth was flat before science “proved” otherwise which wasn’t the caseonly a few bought into the idea that the earth was flat.

6. It’s here, so it must have evolved
A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is four, we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless.

7. Natural selection is evolution
This is likely the most abused argument on the list and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules to man evolution. However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything “new.” The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive.

8. Common design means common ancestry
Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans homology, for example, do not prove common descent that’s an assumption. A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better.

9, Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
Sedimentary layers show one thing, sedimentary layers. In other words, we can and should study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point, such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions.

10. Mutations drive evolution
Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires not even close. Some may benefit an organism , beetles on a windy island losing wings, but virtually every time mutations come with a cost. see give and take on this issue between Dr. Spetner and Dr. Max.

11. The Scopes trial
Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this, Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common though completely flawed perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different account.

12. Science vs. religion
News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common meme presents science and religion as opposing forces reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but it’s bunk. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within and, in fact, requires a God created universe. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to do science in the first place.

That's cute. You set up our "claims" with copied and pasted outlines, and then filled in misleading remarks of things we didn't actually say. This truly is a great example of Christian teachings.

The true problem is people who believe in a creator come from the view "God did it" and evolutionist come from a worldly view that "God didn't do it" and because you can't explain God and he has not revealed himself to you,you turn to a natural process. You just can't admit it.

Wrong once again. God has nothing to do with evolution. THAT DOES NOT MEAN "God didn't do it", it means no one is addressing the topic either way. For example, if you come home and find dinner on the table and someone in the kitchen cleaning some cookware, do you evaluate the evidence as whether god did or did not make you dinner? NO! You just say that person cooked dinner. Has nothing to do with religion, just the evidence presented before you.

You truly are uneducated and brain-washed, aren't you?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Evolution vs. Creation: Origins

In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc. Despite numerous problems, this explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists. Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data.



I only cut/pasted that because Rdean's article reminded me of it.

1.) The theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of the universe or life.

2.) While, admittedly, the debate about where matter originally came from can become so theoretical that it borders on the esoteric, no one here is talking about the big bang theory. You aren't even in the right discipline (biological sciences) let alone the right argument.

The basic screw-ups you guys make imply a vast lack of knowledge over the matter that makes talking about his issue generally frustrating.

But, by all means, keep telling us how screwed up we all are.

Ok let me challenge you now.....

How did life come into existence on the earth?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Ok let me challenge you now.....

How did life come into existence on the earth?

The answer is irrelevant to the concept of evolution. It doesn't matter whether the first life sprang from primordial ooze, or was created by god, or aliens came from another planet and manufactured it and left. Evolution is still maintained, regardless of the starting point.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Ok let me challenge you now.....

How did life come into existence on the earth?

The answer is irrelevant to the concept of evolution. It doesn't matter whether the first life sprang from primordial ooze, or was created by god, or aliens came from another planet and manufactured it and left. Evolution is still maintained, regardless of the starting point.

2 questions:

What did the first life evolve out of?

And you are fine with people believing God created life and then that life evolves?


And you might like this old thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...hat-if-evolution-was-part-of-creationism.html

 

[SmarterThanHick]

2 questions:

What did the first life evolve out of?

The question is still irrelevant for the exact same reason. Evolution is still maintained regardless of the starting point. Even if you made the claim that the earth and all of its life was made 200 years ago, it still doesn't change evolution.

And you are fine with people believing God created life and then that life evolves?

Fine with? I'm not fine with the following things in descending order: ignorant people who try to force their misguided blind beliefs onto public policy including education, ignorant people who propagate their misguided and blind beliefs onto others, ignorant people who keep to themselves. There is irrefutable reproducible evidence for evolution. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about abiogenesis. Now it's your option to subscribe to the mindset of "everything I don't understand must be god." People have been doing that since the dawn of man. But I would find someone smarter who is interested in finding an answer instead of hand waiving magic.

And you might like this old thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...hat-if-evolution-was-part-of-creationism.html

You might like reading that thread too.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

2 questions:

What did the first life evolve out of?

The question is still irrelevant for the exact same reason. Evolution is still maintained regardless of the starting point. Even if you made the claim that the earth and all of its life was made 200 years ago, it still doesn't change evolution.

And you are fine with people believing God created life and then that life evolves?

Fine with? I'm not fine with the following things in descending order: ignorant people who try to force their misguided blind beliefs onto public policy including education, ignorant people who propagate their misguided and blind beliefs onto others, ignorant people who keep to themselves. There is irrefutable reproducible evidence for evolution. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about abiogenesis. Now it's your option to subscribe to the mindset of "everything I don't understand must be god." People have been doing that since the dawn of man. But I would find someone smarter who is interested in finding an answer instead of hand waiving magic.

And you might like this old thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...hat-if-evolution-was-part-of-creationism.html

You might like reading that thread too.

So you don't know what the first life evolved from but you have faith that it did and evolution explains how all life came to exist?

The question mark is my way of asking what your saying instead of trying to put words in your mouth (what you did to me) I don't believe I stated on this forum that I believe in either creationism or evolution but merely have challenged those who believe in both with honest questions.

now can you answer me without going off on some rant that looks like its about me personally without actaully relating to anything I beleive or say? The question, once again, is what did the first life on earth evolve from?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The true problem is people who believe in a creator come from the view "God did it" and evolutionist come from a worldly view that "God didn't do it" and because you can't explain God and he has not revealed himself to you,you turn to a natural process. You just can't admit it.

No it's because, if you don't believe in evolution, you have to explain why you don't find trilobite fossils in the same geological strata as dolphin fossils. The fossil record shows evolution over time. IMO, the only other explanation from the creatioist/ID perspective is that God messes with our minds. Is that what you'd really have us believe? I think you need to lay out exactly how the fossil record came about, if evolution wasn't the driving force before we can consider any of your other points valid..

And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.

The strata in the grand canyon disagrees with your views as well.

Oh this is where you will turn to plate tectonics as an explanation.

I don't say plate tectonics did not happen, i just think it happened during the global flood.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If what you say is true why the conflicting views between Neo-darwinism and Punctuated equilibrium ?

Because that is the nature of science. Unlike faith, science is ever changing and becoming more refined. Unlike the faithful who claim to have all the answers at the get go science thrives in an atmosphere of conflicting ideas. If evolution were a place where there could be no argument, experimentation or refinement it would be faith and not science. It is science so that is not the case.

The true problem is people who believe in a creator come from the view "God did it" and evolutionist come from a worldly view that "God didn't do it" and because you can't explain God and he has not revealed himself to you,you turn to a natural process. You just can't admit it.

And therein lies your problem. Because YOU prescribe to a view that 'god did it' you must project that a scientist has the same problem of a predisposition to a particular answer but fail to realize that IS NOT THE CASE. Nowhere has anyone refuted that god did not do it anyway, it just happens that the process that it came to pass is most likely evolution and not grand design in a blink. Science does not deal in the supernatural and does not refute or strive to prove it either way. What science does do is try and find natural laws and occurrences to better understand our surroundings. I have already gone over this but you seem to prefer to ignore it. The evidence shows that evolution is the means that modern oganisms came to pass and just because you choose to ignore that evidence does not make evolution incorrect. Address the evidence of you want to refute the theory. This, you have failed to do.


Really? You do not believe that there has been any new evidence in the last 100 years that shows evolution to be true? It is ALL due to the shift of using the bible to using science? the truth is, of course, you are right that there has been a shift from hiding behind the 'god did it and that is the way it is' to actually attempting to understand the world. This is a good thing and has brought you wonders like refrigeration, medicine and cars. Or you could just go back to lightning exists because Thor is angry and leave it at that. That IS what ID'ers want. A return to simply god did it and we are not to question the how or why. That is not what science is all about though and not a good basis to set your beliefs on.

Funny enough, that is EXACTLY what ID states and the core of those beliefs. On the other hand, evolution in no way resorts to that kind of asinine argument. It uses EVIDENCE. There is that annoying little word again.

That's where genetics fits in as it fits the common ancestry theory perfectly. I would refer you back to the excellent video that Geauxtohell put up here and its reference to us and the great apes but you most likely did not watch it.

And then you opened your eyes and realized there are MANY ways to date things and they align with sedimentary dating and that there has been a lot of inquiry to this form of dating. This is not some grand assumption that causes these methods to be used but rather it has been shown to be effective. It has its problems but has been shown to be quite useful. Simply dismissing it based on all the facts that you gave (none) is rather dumb.

11. The Scopes trial
Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this, Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common though completely flawed perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different account.

Honestly, a law trial has no bearing on the case at hand anyway as law is not what defines scientific theory. So, yes, it is valid to ignore this argument on your list.

12. Science vs. religion
News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common meme presents science and religion as opposing forces reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but it’s bunk. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within and, in fact, requires a God created universe. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to do science in the first place.

No, science does not require a god created universe and that is a rather dumb thing to say. As it goes, science and religion have nothing to do with one another whatsoever. Science is the study of the natural and religion is the belief in the supernatural. The realms are separate and as such there is no interaction between the two. Science does not preclude religion nor does it rely on it.

A an aside, you may challenge evolution in science and say there is another route that life took and even go as far to say that is un unknown but you cannot replace evolution with ID from a scientific point of view. As far as challenging it though, the evidence would be strongly against you.

So which theory do you believe in ?

No, just the extreme secularlist and the atheist want to say there is no creator.

I don't ignore evidence,i just disagree with the explanations from evolutionist and accept creationists explanations of that same evidence.

Yes, science has brought us many good things.

I have not seen any evidence to suggest macroevolution plenty to show microevolution.

If science don't need a Creator = God then they need to explain how non-living matter became living organisms. If you can't explain the beginning of life ,why do you think you can explain the process of life.

Since the theory is built on assumptions, a couple of wrong assumptions, and of course the theory is wrong.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hick,No one was around to witness the big bang, and yet there's still evidence of it. You weren't around to witness meteors hitting the moon yet it still has all those craters. You weren't around to see Mt. Rushmore being built, so surely you must attribute it to God? Ridiculous. If you are so limited on this earth to only believe the things you directly see and the things someone else tells you is true without evidence or scrutiny, you are ignorant.



Hick,Evolution has no purpose in addressing religion either way. It's the creationists who bring that up. Nonetheless you say you don't agree with the explanation for the evidence, yet it's clear you won't acknowledge the evidence exists, can't say WHY you disagree with the explanation of the evidence, and can't even propose some other explanation for the evidence. How foolish.



Hick,You truly are uneducated and brain-washed, aren't you?[/QUOTE]

If there was a big bang, can you explain why it is expanding and picking up speed ?

Well i see you ignored the give and take between Dr. spetner and Dr. Max. Dr. Spetner shows it was your guy max that brought God into the give and take.

Oh, and in that give and take, Dr. Spetner addresses your questions put to me.

Do you really think i care what you think of me ? You're not my first exp with an evolutionist. I knew what people like you thought of creationists before my first post in this thread. And you being like the rest of the evolutionist i knew your arguments before this thread got serious. I will say the only thing you have brought up that i needed to read up on was Novo mutations.

But in that give and take you ignored, this was covered.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolution vs. Creation: Origins

In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc. Despite numerous problems, this explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists. Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data.



I only cut/pasted that because Rdean's article reminded me of it.

1.) The theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of the universe or life.

2.) While, admittedly, the debate about where matter originally came from can become so theoretical that it borders on the esoteric, no one here is talking about the big bang theory. You aren't even in the right discipline (biological sciences) let alone the right argument.

The basic screw-ups you guys make imply a vast lack of knowledge over the matter that makes talking about his issue generally frustrating.

But, by all means, keep telling us how screwed up we all are.

Ok let me challenge you now.....

How did life come into existence on the earth?

Oh they're not concerned with that. well i think that would be science too.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

So you don't know what the first life evolved from but you have faith that it did and evolution explains how all life came to exist?

The question mark is my way of asking what your saying instead of trying to put words in your mouth

If that is your method of asking a question, I recommend you re-evaluate your communication methods. There's a difference between asking a question a question like "What do you think about ABC?" compared to "You don't know A but you must believe B?" But I thank you for clarifying afterwards that it is a question, as it was originally interpreted as an assertion.

Regarding the question itself: no. Religion has no middle ground. Everything MUST be "known" or explained for the religion to work out. Science has an alternate: not knowing. The options in science are not "it's definitely true" or "it's faith that it's true." It's either true, or not fully supported. So even though there is a good working idea of how things came to be, the fact still remains that there is not compelling reproducible evidence that really proves it. That does NOT mean I have faith that the working idea is correct, since it has not been proven to be correct. It is what it is: unknown for the time being. And that's ok in science, but not religion.

REGARDLESS, evolution is a separate process, just as learning how to drive is a separate knowledge set from building a car. It doesn't matter how you get a car, whether you buy it, or your parents give it to you, or you steal it: you still know how to drive it. So too does evolution drive the change in life over time, REGARDLESS of where the life came from.

The question, once again, is what did the first life on earth evolve from?

What you are describing is abiogenesis, not evolution.

And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.

No, that's not necessary.

You seem to continually skip around from topic to topic. Everytime you're proven wrong in one area, you leave it pretending it doesn't exist, to move onto your next poor excuse or copied and pasted outdated garbage. Why don't you pick one and stick to it?

Here are a few topic suggestions:

• The "new information" you said can never come about and I proved you wrong about
• How you don't understand microevolution, let alone how it genetically differs from macroevolution
• What genetics tells us about evolution
• How bacteria gain antibiotic resistance without exogenous genetic information

Wait wait. You pick a topic. You generally lack the integrity to see it through to the end, but try your hardest.