Evolution - Let's discuss!! (faith, verse, religion, organization)

[malcolan]

Originally Posted by neutrino

The amount of misinformation in this thread is astounding. I don't care if some doctoral scientists in fields other than biology don't understand evolution.

There are plenty of biologist/genetic scientists who signed the document. In doing so, they are risking their reputation and careers and face heavy peer scrutiny and mudslinging. They signed it because they do understand evolution.

Originally Posted by neutrino

If aspects of current evolutionary theories are proven incorrect, then the theories must be updated.

Of course it's updated. This is usually where the imaginative storytelling comes into play.

Originally Posted by neutrino

The fact remains that evolution is a theory which has withstood the scrutiny of skeptical scientists for over 150 years. Theories unite facts which are discovered through repeated, empirical observations and experiments.

Heavy skepticism has only recently surfaced over the last several decades. Repeatable, empirical observations and experiments are the cause.

[jeffncandace]

God created evolution. Next question.

[ian6479]

Originally Posted by JViello

Funny...I was reading your posts thinking the same thing.

Your science once said the world was flat - The bible has said it's round all along.

Isaiah 40:22
"[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"

The word "circle" is the Hebrew word "chuwg" and it literally means "sphere".

So much for a book full of "fairytale mumbo jumbo"

There's lots more where that came from if you'd open your eyes.

Sorry I have not responded but I have been in Munich seeing in the new year at the HB. Still a little tipsy but here goes:

When it comes to scientific claims, the Bible has the dumbest claims. The Bible claims that Earth has four ends and four corners. Nobody can ever think a ball or a cycle to have corners and ends! Only flat items can have corners and ends, and this is exactly what the bible is trying to express regarding the shape of the earth. The earth is not flat, as once thought and it has no corners or ends at all. If Magnetic Poles can be taken as ends or corners of earth, then this definitely opposed to the axis of rotation.

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

The Bible not only failed to claim that the Earth was egg-shaped, but it also claimed in numerous verses as shown above that the Earth is flat, has Edges, has Four Corners, has Pillars, and has Foundations.

So being as you are completely wrong (as are the other anti-evolutionary posters), what about my arguments do YOU find laughable??

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by ian6479

Sorry I have not responded but I have been in Munich seeing in the new year at the HB. Still a little tipsy but here goes:

When it comes to scientific claims, the Bible has the dumbest claims. The Bible claims that Earth has four ends and four corners. Nobody can ever think a ball or a cycle to have corners and ends! Only flat items can have corners and ends, and this is exactly what the bible is trying to express regarding the shape of the earth. The earth is not flat, as once thought and it has no corners or ends at all. If Magnetic Poles can be taken as ends or corners of earth, then this definitely opposed to the axis of rotation.

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

The Bible not only failed to claim that the Earth was egg-shaped, but it also claimed in numerous verses as shown above that the Earth is flat, has Edges, has Four Corners, has Pillars, and has Foundations.

So being as you are completely wrong (as are the other anti-evolutionary posters), what about my arguments do YOU find laughable??

I can't speak for the poster you quoted, but I find your entire post very very laughable, since you asked.....

At least you'll have the 'tipsy' excuse, so that'll save you.

The scripture you used is quite misquoted.

The 'ends of the earth' and 'four corners' references we've talked about multiple times, although I'm not sure in this thread. It's the same thing as my grandma said when she'd say "I'd go to the ends of the earth for you!"

The Daniel scripture you quoted is probably the funniest. I was kinda surprised by you on that Ian, but since I'm guessing the alcohol played a role in that, I won't beat you over the head. I'll just encourage any poor soul that took that serious to just open a Bible to Daniel 4 and look at verse 5("I had a dream") and verse 10 ("These are the visions I had...") The tree was an account of a dream, Ian. Sad what alcohol can do to folks.

The Matthew scripture was satan talking to Jesus and I have no problem believing that IF there's a Jesus and a satan, then this could have been easily done via a spiritual vision or some other aspect of their supernatural countenance.

Trying to argue that the bible teaches the earth is flat or that the earth is the center of the universe is sad and has been disproven multiple times both here and across the internet. It's simply untrue. Let me ask you Ian, have you ever said "Wow, that's a beautiful sunset"? Because if you have then could one not say "hehehe, Ian thinks the sun is actually setting. He thinks the sun is moving around the earth." No. That's ridiculous. You'd just be using the same way of communicating the rest of us do.

[Nikk]

Originally Posted by ian6479

So where is your proof that the earth rotates around the sun, and not the other way around?

Lets face facts.. evolution is a fact. To deny it is to deny fact. I would love to hear you deny gravitation, relativity, or quantum mechanics.. I mean they are after all, scientific theories right?

Ian6479,

You are confusing "Operational Science" with "Historical Science". Operational science is the stuff that makes microwaves and puts man on the moon. Historical science is the kind that guesses at the past and attempts to overlay this with some scientific data. Ufortunatly the past is the past, it is not repeatable like some chemistry lab experiment. Because it is not repeatable and there is no one alive that was there that can confirm how the events took place then it is just a guess. And the guesses of man continual change based on someone else's new theory.

The Bible claims to be the word of God. The Bible explains how the world began from God's perspective. So, if the Bible is the word of God then the events it describes must be true. The Bible has be very consistant on many topics. Since it has be consistant on the things that we can test we can rely on it to be truthful on the things that we cannot test. Also as science continues (operational science), more of the Bible is confirmed.

Evolution is not a fact. To be a fact it must be observed. It has not. Natural Selection is not evolution. Natural Selection was written about by Edward Blythe a Christian scientist 25 years before Darwin wrote Origin of the species. Darwin did not show that natural selection existed but that it was the method through which the spieces had formed. One species becoming another species has not been observed.

The theory of Gravity is just a theory and is subject to change. I know there is a means by which we remain close to the surface of the earth. The Bible has never denied that humans walk on the ground. But I like Mark McCutchins reasoning as to why this occurs. However Mark is just a human and his theory is just a theory and is subject to clarification and modification. So, I do not have a problem with theories. I just have a problem with theories that time and again have been shown to be inadaquate and yet people still rely upon them. In the case of Evolution the alternative is creation and no evolutionist will "allow a religious foot in the door"

By the way relativity is obsolete (And it is posible for something to go faster than the speed of light). And Quantum Mechanics is an attempt to explain why relativity does not work on the atomic level. Quantum mechanics is open for revision too. These theories are just attempts to explain the universe but they only work in specific circumtances, which means they are poor theories. There are underlying laws which these theories point to.

[MontanaGuy]

Nikk wrote:

Evolution is not a fact. To be a fact it must be observed. It has not.

That's simply not true. We can observe the changing of species in the fossil record. The fossil record is a massive amount of evidence that creationists refuse to acknowledge or accept but it's very real and lays out the long historical record of life on earth.
By the way, to those of you who know me, I'm in Nashville now but I'm staying in a hotel and I won't get my belongings shipped to my new house until the middle of next week so I probably won't get much of a chance to get on the internet until then. Once I'm back online I'll have to make up for all of the time I've missed.

[malcolan]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

Nikk wrote:

That's simply not true. We can observe the changing of species in the fossil record. The fossil record is a massive amount of evidence that creationists refuse to acknowledge or accept but it's very real and lays out the long historical record of life on earth.
By the way, to those of you who know me, I'm in Nashville now but I'm staying in a hotel and I won't get my belongings shipped to my new house until the middle of next week so I probably won't get much of a chance to get on the internet until then. Once I'm back online I'll have to make up for all of the time I've missed.

On the contrary, the fossil record is perhaps the creationists best argument. Darwin listed the fossil record as being one of the strongest arguments against his theory, but believed that some day, when more fossils were found, fossils would confirm his theory. As it turned out, the fossil record is even more troublesome to evolutionists today than it was in Darwin’s day.

If evolution were true, one would expect to find fossils of just a few kinds of simple creatures in the lowest rock layers. As one goes higher in the rock layers, there should be more and more different kinds, similar to those below, but slightly more complex. This isn’t at all what the fossil record shows.

If evolution were true, there would not be such clear divisions between classes, orders, and families. It should be really hard to decide if certain living creatures were reptiles or mammals because there should be innumerable living transitional forms.

The “Cambrian explosion” of fossils is not what would be expected if the theory of evolution were true. Evolutionists first tried to explain away the scientific observations by saying that there were gaps in the fossil record. More recently, they have tried to explain it away with “punctuated equilibrium”.

Some people believe in evolution because they don’t understand the true nature of the fossil record. They don’t know the true nature because evolutionists have been successful in censoring the science text books.

The bottom line is this:

Science is supposed to deal with facts, not belief. Something is not a fact simply because someone who has been trained as a scientist believes it. Something is a fact because anyone who had adequate laboratory equipment can do an experiment that proves the fact is true.

The theory of evolution is not a fact.

Nobody has ever done an experiment showing that, given enough time, a fish will become a frog, and a frog will become a prince. Breeding experiments, medical experiments, and origin of life experiments, all demonstrate that the molecules-to-man idea is a fairy tale, not a scientific truth.

Once the scientific community can agree on a replacement theory (read: one that does not involve creationism), then the theory of evolution will move from the Science books to the History books. In my opinion, this will take no longer than 10 years.

[ResdntProSalesEvalley]

Don't you know anything?! We evolved forth from the swamp 4.5 billion years ago but the right wing Christians / elect are different. They are waiting for GOD to create evolution and they threaten to continue acting like beasts until she does!

[JakeDog]

Originally Posted by malcolan

On the contrary, the fossil record is perhaps the creationists best argument. Darwin listed the fossil record as being one of the strongest arguments against his theory, but believed that some day, when more fossils were found, fossils would confirm his theory. As it turned out, the fossil record is even more troublesome to evolutionists today than it was in Darwin’s day.

If evolution were true, one would expect to find fossils of just a few kinds of simple creatures in the lowest rock layers. As one goes higher in the rock layers, there should be more and more different kinds, similar to those below, but slightly more complex. This isn’t at all what the fossil record shows.

If evolution were true, there would not be such clear divisions between classes, orders, and families. It should be really hard to decide if certain living creatures were reptiles or mammals because there should be innumerable living transitional forms.

The “Cambrian explosion” of fossils is not what would be expected if the theory of evolution were true. Evolutionists first tried to explain away the scientific observations by saying that there were gaps in the fossil record. More recently, they have tried to explain it away with “punctuated equilibrium”.

Some people believe in evolution because they don’t understand the true nature of the fossil record. They don’t know the true nature because evolutionists have been successful in censoring the science text books.

The bottom line is this:

Science is supposed to deal with facts, not belief. Something is not a fact simply because someone who has been trained as a scientist believes it. Something is a fact because anyone who had adequate laboratory equipment can do an experiment that proves the fact is true.

The theory of evolution is not a fact.

Nobody has ever done an experiment showing that, given enough time, a fish will become a frog, and a frog will become a prince. Breeding experiments, medical experiments, and origin of life experiments, all demonstrate that the molecules-to-man idea is a fairy tale, not a scientific truth.

Once the scientific community can agree on a replacement theory (read: one that does not involve creationism), then the theory of evolution will move from the Science books to the History books. In my opinion, this will take no longer than 10 years.

LOL. How much you want to bet? The more we learn about genetics, biosciences, etc. the more evolution is proven correct. Everything that has been discovered since Darwin that is factual has merely supported the theory. it is a falsifiable theory, but the darn evidence just keeps supporting it!

[malcolan]

Originally Posted by JakeDog

LOL. How much you want to bet? The more we learn about genetics, biosciences, etc. the more evolution is proven correct. Everything that has been discovered since Darwin that is factual has merely supported the theory. it is a falsifiable theory, but the darn evidence just keeps supporting it!

Really?

More and more scientists are doubting the theory of evolution -- that is a fact. Disagreement among biologists is rampant because evolutionary "facts", are not facts at all--they are opinions.

The reason why there are debates about evolutionary topics is because the things being discussed are matters of opinion, not scientific facts. Somebody finds a part of a jaw and thinks it came from a human ancestor. A second scientist (who usually has also discovered a part of a jaw, which he claims came from a human ancestor) says the first scientist is wrong. There is more ego involved than evidence. Objectivity is distorted by the desire (perhaps even the need) to have bragging rights.

There are no disputes among biologists about non-evolutionary topics. For instance, you've never read a headline that says "Biologists now say the liver, not the heart, pumps blood". And even if you did, it would quickly be resolved because this is something that can be tested and proven.

If there really was some solid evidence that one kind of species has ever turned into another kind of species, biologists would agree on it, just as they agree on the function of internal organs.