Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your idea of blind faith does not track with reality. Blind faith has nothing BUT the words of other men to support the claims . . . e.g., primitive goat herders in the distant past. Faith in the work of scientists is based on the method of investigation they use. Those of us who have employed that method understand its strengths and limitations and what kind of evidence there is to rely on. There is nothing blind about that faith. Evolution operates over long time periods tied to the reproduction cycles of the species involved. The only species with short enough reproduction cycles to observe changes in species during a human lifetime are bacteria. Richard Lenski has conducted such a long-term experiment on 12 strains pf E-Coli for more than 27 years and has documented evolutionary change.
You could stop at the bold, and you would be making my point.
We are not talking bacteria here... human beings. Evolution takes place over long periods of time. Are you telling me it is happening today - but at a super slow pace?
Just FYI - that Bible's takes is that everything is produced from it's own kind after the initial version was created by God. This seems to be what is occurring today and ever since people have been alive. There may be changes within a species, but that's about it.
I am trying to get him to think for himself... don't help him out...
I'm sure better info could have been produced, but this was probably the best he could find that insulted the other side.
Helping him out? Did I misread your post? It appeared you were stumbling a bit on the terminology and didn't understand the chart. You had asked where the hypothesis was on the chart. I was just letting you know.
Helping him out? It looked like you were stumbling a bit on the terminology and didn't understand the chart.
You see a reply was not supplied until you said something.
A hypotheses is really more than just an idea. The theory can come from the hypotheses first before the experiments start. And then you refine the theory based on what the evidence reveals.
Anyway - my point is that with no real human evolution data, where does the theory com from?
Your idea of blind faith does not track with reality. Blind faith has nothing BUT the words of other men to support the claims . . . e.g., primitive goat herders in the distant past. Faith in the work of scientists is based on the method of investigation they use. Those of us who have employed that method understand its strengths and limitations and what kind of evidence there is to rely on. There is nothing blind about that faith. Evolution operates over long time periods tied to the reproduction cycles of the species involved. The only species with short enough reproduction cycles to observe changes in species during a human lifetime are bacteria. Richard Lenski has conducted such a long-term experiment on 12 strains pf E-Coli for more than 27 years and has documented evolutionary change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
You could stop at the bold, and you would be making my point.
But by stopping there you completely ignore the reason faith in scientific theories is NOT blind faith.
Quote:
We are not talking bacteria here... human beings. Evolution takes place over long periods of time. Are you telling me it is happening today - but at a super slow pace?
Yes it is happening today but probably at a similar pace to the past. You do realize that a human lifetime is not remotely sufficient for evolution to occur in humans. It requires more than a million human lifetimes. How do you expect us to observe it? That is why bacteria were used. You realize there are different species of bacteria, just as there are different species of primates (us and the various apes), right? The lifetimes of bacteria and their reproduction cycles are short enough to achieve 60,000 lifetimes in 27 years, enough to observe a single major species change.
Quote:
Just FYI - that Bible's takes is that everything is produced from it's own kind after the initial version was created by God. This seems to be what is occurring today and ever since people have been alive. There may be changes within a species, but that's about it.
What you just said about "kind" reveals a lack of understanding. Without using the appropriate jargon, let's just say that in your understanding of "kind" we are just one change in the "kind" (primate), as are our cousins, chimps, monkeys, orangutans, gorillas, etc.
Here's what I have a hard time getting my head around... Why does believing in a young earth make God any greater than believing in an old earth does?
Because the first involves faith and acceptance of His written word, whereas the second involves submitting to the contradictory so-called evidence of geologic science.
Because the first involves faith and acceptance of His written word, whereas the second involves submitting to the contradictory so-called evidence of geologic science.
You see a reply was not supplied until you said something.
A hypotheses is really more than just an idea. The theory can come from the hypotheses first before the experiments start. And then you refine the theory based on what the evidence reveals.
Anyway - my point is that with no real human evolution data, where does the theory com from?
This, ladies and germs, is a fundamentalist engineer's "understanding" of Science.
And DNA evidence exists that show us to be akin to the apes. You may not like it, but it exists. Chimp DNA and human DNA have been mapped out , and the evidence shows a common heritage.
This doesnt even address the things like common defective genes found among apes and humans, or the vestigial organs of evolution, like the snake smelling organ we still possess in vestigial form.
The evidence is there for those willing to see it. For those that refuse to see it due to religious beliefs , nothing will ever be evidence enough to alter their indoctrination.
Another inaccurate claim by those who blindly believe the Macro Evolution claims. The DNA relationship in full, not just a small section, is widely different, about a 60%. The claim is 95% and that is only on a very small section of the DNA. Typical twist by those who believe in Evolution.
Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content
And this as can be seen is from those who believe in Evolution, but looked deeper than most into the claim about the similarity between chimps and humans.
You gotta read more than headlines from Pro Evolution sites.
This, ladies and germs, is a fundamentalist engineer's "understanding" of Science.
Notice he didn't say what kind of an engineer he was. Never mind the fact that being an engineer or having a degree in engineering is hardly a guarantee the person knows a darn thing about science or the scientific method. Especially if he/she attended a school that taught YEC.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 10-30-2015 at 03:00 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
