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.
Well evolutionists make the same misguided assumption.'God' could have used evolution,plenty of people who believe in some form of god dont dispute evolution.Even if evolution is found to be totally correct,[which I believe it mostly is],that has no relevance to the question of the existence of 'God' except for those totally wedded to the notion that God has to do everything with the wave of his hand or the wiggle of her nose to be legit.
I agree, which is why I don't understand why many Christians get so upset with the idea of evolution. The theory shouldn't really have anything to do with God or religion.
Why does the argument always come up that evolution has not been observed?
This is what I put together reading about a 20-year long experiment proving evolution.
In June 2008 a team of scientists around National Academy of Science member Prof. Richard Lenski published the results of a twenty year long experiment involving a strain of bacterium E. coli, separating its descendants into twelve populations and watching for twenty years how different mutations developed and even led to the digestion of citrate, formerly impossible. This pretty much proves evolution. This article, originally made public in the New Scientist magazine, somehow aggravated the people from Conservapedia, the creationist wannabe version of Wikipedia. Their founder, Andrew Schlafly, then wrote to the scientists and demanded an explanation. This then became the slap of the century in the face of creationists by Prof. Lenski. This has subsequently become “The Lenski Affair”, showing how creationists and Bible thumpers who pester real scientists should be and are being treated.
I'm sorry, but how does the fact that there were mutations (something which I was taught was not a contribution to the evolutionary process but seperate - maybe I got a bad tutor) and the digestion of citrate mean that evolution is proven (pretty much)? Fish that have been seperated from sunlight have been known to lose their eyesight as the generations go by but they are still the same breed of fish.
If the study were to continue it may well show more monumental change but at present I think we are jumping the gun to see this as proof, it may even be said that a "leap of faith" has been involved to consider it thus.
The main Christian argument or opposition against evolution is not the development of creatures to adapt to their environment but is the changing from one species to another, most notably, from the ape-like creature to human. It says in Genesis chapter 1 that god made all creatures to "multiply after their own kind". This didn't say that they were immutable but that each species multiplied.
Creationists in general may believe otherwise but that is the hurdle scientists will have to "prove" to show the bible view to be incorrect.
By the way, the misconception that the bible supports the flat earth view is incorrect; it is based on Jesus using the saying,"...four corners of the Earth." This, of course, is just a saying, which is still used in western society today by those who have seen proof of a near spherical earth and,so far as my knowledge extends, has never been used by any christian at any time to support a view of a flat earth.
The main Christian argument or opposition against evolution is not the development of creatures to adapt to their environment but is the changing from one species to another, most notably, from the ape-like creature to human. It says in Genesis chapter 1 that god made all creatures to "multiply after their own kind". This didn't say that they were immutable but that each species multiplied.
Creationists in general may believe otherwise but that, so that is the hurdle scientist will have to "prove" to show the bible view to be incorrect.
The word species is just a means of categorizing any living thing so that it can be placed within the framework of every other living thing in such a way that a primate for example is more closely related to other primates than they are to a chicken or a potato. In fact the definition of a species is not very precise because there really are no barriers that will stop any organism from evolving beyond certain limitations as many creationists believe.
The problem that creationists will never be able to explain within their belief system is the fact that it is irrefutable that most of the species we're familiar with today, particular modern mammals, did not exist before the extinction of the dinosaurs so it leaves them having to explain where they came from if they didn't evolve. The belief that every species that ever lived coexisted at one period of time is absolutely false as I've said countless times on this forum. We don't find a strata that contains fossils of dinosaurs, jackrabbits, human beings and French Poodles all in the same strata dated at the same age. That is very persuasive proof that evolution does in fact happen.
Sorry to correct you (slight correction though it is) but that would be persuasive 'evidence' not proof.
When the dinosaurs were around there were mammals also, the absence of humans may be, they may conjecture, that there were so few humans at this time and so to find a fossil of one would be improbable. It may be an answer which stretches probability but it is still possible and so still a legitimate argument.
I think that whatever irrefutable evidence you have, concerning fossil records, its conclusion will be refuted; these are, after all, people who really want, really think they need, to believe that god exists and that the bible is totally correct in its description of creation. Their whole life is built upon their 'relationship' with god, so they will do all they can to make the round peg fit the square hole.
Don't you guys just love these Creationsists? They use science and technology all day everyday: the wakeup to a digital alarm clock; they microwave their coffee and croissant; they drive to work in an automobile with an internal combustion, fuel-injected engine--and maybe even a GPS system; they make a doctor's appointment for an x-ray on their cell phone.
THEN: they get on their personal computer and post about how the science of carbon-dating and evolution is bogus and groundless.
Peace.
I don't think AREQUIPA is a creationist....but I could be wrong.
I think you'll find that as easily refuted as all the previous evidence. It is all supposition, invention, unprovable, no - one has seen a chimp change into a human and all the rest.
The delusionalist sect will simply curl into a state of denial with their fingers in their ears saying 'neener neener neener, I can't hear you'
Oh joy, another "anti-evolutionist" coming to tell us that the Toe is a myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by museofire
I'm sorry, but how does the fact that there were mutations (something which I was taught was not a contribution to the evolutionary process but seperate - maybe I got a bad tutor)
Perhaps you are looking for something like this?
Quote:
and the digestion of citrate mean that evolution is proven (pretty much)? Fish that have been seperated from sunlight have been known to lose their eyesight as the generations go by but they are still the same breed of fish.
Same genome, still a fish, a mutation hence evolved to new environment
Quote:
If the study were to continue it may well show more monumental change but at present I think we are jumping the gun to see this as proof, it may even be said that a "leap of faith" has been involved to consider it thus.
The main Christian argument or opposition against evolution is not the development of creatures to adapt to their environment but is the changing from one species to another, most notably, from the ape-like creature to human.
I suppose you are looking for a crocoduck?
Quote:
It says in Genesis chapter 1 that god made all creatures to "multiply after their own kind". This didn't say that they were immutable but that each species multiplied.
Creationists in general may believe otherwise but that is the hurdle scientists will have to "prove" to show the bible view to be incorrect.
Err no laddie, you cannot depart from the premise of a conclusion and then expect us to find support or lack thereof to dismiss your myths. You know extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof and of course the burden of proof is upon the claimant, not the other way round.
But of course there is ample evidence for the ToE to be factual, the mere fact that you are uneducated in the ToE does not mean it is not true.
Quote:
By the way, the misconception that the bible supports the flat earth view is incorrect; it is based on Jesus using the saying,"...four corners of the Earth." This, of course, is just a saying, which is still used in western society today by those who have seen proof of a near spherical earth and,so far as my knowledge extends, has never been used by any christian at any time to support a view of a flat earth.
This is laughable. Perhaps you should peruse the threads a bit more so that we do not have to refute your BS and see that there is ample evidence that the earth was viewed ass flat. The 4 corners argument is but one. "And satan took jesus up on the highest mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the word..." suggested that jesus worship hem and then all this would be his et al.
So tell us, where exactly does on find the mountain that see over the horizon of a sphere? Oh we are not supposed to take this as literal but the other parts you choose to take as fact like your mythical hell is? Gee, if we get to decide what is truth and what is allegory from the wurd of gawd, that pretty much makes your gawd a doofus or an illiterate or one that cannot communicate coherently with the scribes of his inspired wurd?
Quote:
I know that the use of "Flat earth" was as a jibe at creationists but I thought it best to correct any misconception.
No you have not corrected any misconception. Just demonstrated your ignorance of what evolution is.
Well evolutionists make the same misguided assumption.'God' could have used evolution,plenty of people who believe in some form of god dont dispute evolution.Even if evolution is found to be totally correct,[which I believe it mostly is],that has no relevance to the question of the existence of 'God' except for those totally wedded to the notion that God has to do everything with the wave of his hand or the wiggle of her nose to be legit.
Yes, but the chances that the "God" responsible for evolution, the universe etc being the quite obviously man-made dogmatic Biblical god, or the god of any other earthly religion is pretty much nill.
My,my, justme58, you have just provided evidence for the "leap of faith" I described.
I am not a creationist. I am not a Christian.
Jesus must have had good eyesight to see every kingdom of the world, mustn't he? I don't see your argument here; can't a person describe something, such as "I'm over the moon", and make statements like "I feel really good"? Can't a person talk each way he pleases, does it have to be figuratively or literal all the time? I do apologise for not looking up the thread on whether or not the ancient world believed in a flat earth (which, I believe the Babylonians did, and others) but I wasn't aware that one had to scan the forums for such things before making a comment on them, thank you for correcting me.
I say that scientist will have to prove to show the bible view (that creatures don't become 'other' creatures)to be incorrect. I say this because Christians will not believe it unless that particular point is proven, whether the burden of proof lies with them (for their creationist view) or the evolutionist (for their's). Christians don't have to prove what they believe in order for them to believe it, do they? They have different levels of evidence for what they believe, as you do for what you believe and I do for mine. The evidence you have seen has been adequate enough to persuade you to believe it, others may just believe it despite knowing little or nothing about it - just because it was taught them as being correct. The same is true with Christians; some believe without any evidence, some believe with much. If you want to change a Christian's mind on the evolution issue you will not go far by asking them to prove that that creation is correct; why should they bother when they have the other evidences/faith to keep on believing that god's way is the best? Creationism is there as a cushion to provide evidences for creation, just like evidence in a court of law. The thing is, they won't sift through loads of evolutionary evidence that shows small changes/ ephemeral changes because that is not enough - they need the proof, or as close to it as makes no difference, that one type of creature can evolve into another. As I said, if the study continues it may well show something that BIG.
If you believe in something then, if others are to believe it, you have to provide evidence which can be examined; if there are points of some evolutionist argument which I believe don't stand up to the standard needed to prove something then don't I have a right, a duty, to point that out.
When I was taught about the theory of Evolution I was told, by an athiest, that evolution doesn't involve mutation because it has been shown that mutated animals were excluded/shunned by other animals, making it impossible for the mutation to carry on down the generations. That was what I was taught, if it is wrong then I am open to being educated about it; I have no preset view that means I cling to this it.
Lastly, ho ho, those drawings were so funny I almost peed my pants, you must be a full time comedian, where do you get the time to read a posting and completely miss the point?
Last edited by museofire; 10-21-2009 at 10:41 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.
