Christians' misunderstanding of evolution not ALL their fault [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Christians' misunderstanding of evolution not ALL their fault


Bren
08-27-2012, 08:26
I'm not excusing anybody's lack of effort to educate themselves. However, I recently watched some documentaries on human evolutionary history and I was aggravated, as I always am, by the issue of "language." Basically, how the misunderstanding of evolution, among creationists, seems to be linked to the poor ability of scientists to describe things, or the limitations of language.

In the debates on evolution, the "creation" side typically shows a misunderstanding of the most basic concepts of either evolution or the scientific method, but I am convinced that part of the problem lies in the way scientists and teachers describe evolution.

Things like: “we descended from apes” or “the apes had to change to adapt to the changing environment in Africa” or “these moths changed from brown to gray to blend in with the environment and avoid predators.” All of those statements are “sort of true-ish” but give an impression of something completely wrong. In turn, the religious community usually argues against what they perceive as the silly claims of science, based on these poor word choices. “If we descended from apes, why are their still apes” and “how can a moth choose to change its color” and “why don’t we just adapt immunity to cancer or UV radiation” or something like that.

Obviously, there is some feigned ignorance, especially on the internet. But has anybody else noticed the scientific community’s poor word choices and how they mirror the misunderstanding of evolution?






Technically, the title should say "creationists" but I've never heard an anti-evolution debate from any who aren't christians. No doubt, muslims have the same issues, but you aren't allowed to discuss it in their countries and they don't have much influence in mine.

NMG26
08-27-2012, 08:48
On target.

I was just going to bring that up in another thread.

.

Animal Mother
08-27-2012, 10:25
I'm not excusing anybody's lack of effort to educate themselves. However, I recently watched some documentaries on human evolutionary history and I was aggravated, as I always am, by the issue of "language." Basically, how the misunderstanding of evolution, among creationists, seems to be linked to the poor ability of scientists to describe things, or the limitations of language.

In the debates on evolution, the "creation" side typically shows a misunderstanding of the most basic concepts of either evolution or the scientific method, but I am convinced that part of the problem lies in the way scientists and teachers describe evolution.

Things like: “we descended from apes” or “the apes had to change to adapt to the changing environment in Africa” or “these moths changed from brown to gray to blend in with the environment and avoid predators.” All of those statements are “sort of true-ish” but give an impression of something completely wrong. In turn, the religious community usually argues against what they perceive as the silly claims of science, based on these poor word choices. “If we descended from apes, why are their still apes” and “how can a moth choose to change its color” and “why don’t we just adapt immunity to cancer or UV radiation” or something like that.

Obviously, there is some feigned ignorance, especially on the internet. But has anybody else noticed the scientific community’s poor word choices and how they mirror the misunderstanding of evolution? In the case of evolution, most of the creationists' objections are based on wording that is decades, if not over a century old. The constant references to the use of "Race" in the full title of the Origin of Species is a prime example. Among creationist believers misunderstanding may play a role, but most often that's due to the willful misrepresentations of people like Hovind and Ham and Baugh.
Technically, the title should say "creationists" but I've never heard an anti-evolution debate from any who aren't christians. No doubt, muslims have the same issues, but you aren't allowed to discuss it in their countries and they don't have much influence in mine.
Harun Yahya

Altaris
08-27-2012, 11:25
In the case of evolution, most of the creationists' objections are based on wording that is decades, if not over a century old. The constant references to the use of "Race" in the full title of the Origin of Species is a prime example. Among creationist believers misunderstanding may play a role, but most often that's due to the willful misrepresentations of people like Hovind and Ham and Baugh.

Harun Yahya

I agree. While some are truly not knowledgeable and the wording does legitimately confuse them, I tend to think most try to play word games, or just won’t listen no matter how much evidence it put in front of them. I think many know better and know what we really are trying to mean, but play word games to intentionally misrepresent the information. We have a lot of examples of that in threads on this board where the other person knows what is going on, but then claims wording is important and that “I really don’t know what you mean”, even though it is obvious what is going on.

Geko45
08-27-2012, 11:56
Obviously, there is some feigned ignorance, especially on the internet. But has anybody else noticed the scientific community’s poor word choices and how they mirror the misunderstanding of evolution?

My problem with how evolution is generally presented is that it always seems to be anthropomorphised into an intelligent force that is moving us "forward". That is not the case at all. There is no "forward" or "backward" when it comes to evolution. It is an entirely dispassionate effect that is the culmination of a million probabilities playing themselves out. A species either thrives or dies without any objective truth to that being either a "good" or "bad" thing. It just is.

The dinosaurs were given a turn of events that they couldn't adapt to and now they are gone. Likewise, we will eventually be presented with something that we can't handle and will be gone too. Hopefully that is after a few billion year run for the species, but if it doesn't work out that way then oh well.

English
08-27-2012, 11:57
Bren,
A nice post. Unfortunately the language is rooted in religious concepts. The word, "creature" for instance come from the concept of all life being the creation of God. To all reasonable understanding, we are descended from apes because those apes remained recognisably apes in appearance and behaviour while we changed both appearance and behaviour though, in zoological terms terms, as Desmond Morris pointed out, we are naked apes.

It is hard not to say that a creature wanted to change when we mean that a species needed to do so if its species was to survive. It gets cumbersome to be precise in such ways. In comparison, the bleat of, "If we descended from apes, why are there still apes?" is quite easy. Only some of those long ago apes were forced out of the forrest and into the savanah and on those individuals, the loosers in the struggle to hold a forrest territory, different selective forces came into effect from their different environment. These forces made us evolve into humans by gradual stages, generation by generation while the long ago apes in the forrest kept the same environmental forces that made them apes originally and so they stayed much closer to their 6 million years ago ancestors. It is an easy enough idea but many people seem unable to think about things that take hundreds or thousands of generations to achieve.

In general only a minority of the scientifically inclined go into teaching and so maths or biology teachers might often have trained in history or physical education. Then they teach without real understanding of evolution or the scientific method, or the nature of evidence and falsification of ideas.

There is a physicist who goes round schools demonstrating to physics teachers that even their relatively advanced students don't actually understand what the teachers think they have taught about the basic principles behind the lessons. One example was to get the students to draw a simple electrical circuit with a switch, a bulb and a battery immediately after a lecture on the basis of a circuit. The majority did not manage to connect the components so that a circuit was formed. That was in a teachers training college. Another was to ask students where the material for a tree weighing several tons had come from. They didn't really know but the majority guess was that earth was converted into wood and leaves.

On this basis you can't hope for too much from TV programs. The ignorance is not just of evolution but of any kind of science. And the idea that people as a whole might understand the scientific method and the scientific meaning of proof and truth is just too much to hope for. And then there are the Greens of course where a misunderstanding of science and evidence are the basis for a political movement and the socialists where a misunderstanding of the nature of progress and economics are equally the basis of an even more dangerous political movement.

For the most part the people who get into TV are arts graduates who know nothing of science. When they then produce programs or interview people about topics like evolution they think they know what they are talking about but don't understand the basics.

Ho hum!

English

Bren
08-27-2012, 13:04
My problem with how evolution is generally presented is that it always seems to be anthropomorphised into an intelligent force that is moving us "forward". That is not the case at all.


Exactly my complaint. They tend to use words that imply species "choosing" and changing themselves or "needing" to change - even words like "adapt" leave out the part where we adapt by those who aren't suitable dying, even including whole species. Using better terminology might go along way to helping people understand that the tree of evolution is shaped by pruning shears.


That's a pretty good line - "the tree of evolution is shaped by pruning shears." Feel free to use it.:supergrin:

Gunhaver
08-27-2012, 15:31
Bren,
A nice post. Unfortunately the language is rooted in religious concepts. The word, "creature" for instance come from the concept of all life being the creation of God. To all reasonable understanding, we are descended from apes because those apes remained recognisably apes in appearance and behaviour while we changed both appearance and behaviour though, in zoological terms terms, as Desmond Morris pointed out, we are naked apes.

It is hard not to say that a creature wanted to change when we mean that a species needed to do so if its species was to survive. It gets cumbersome to be precise in such ways. In comparison, the bleat of, "If we descended from apes, why are there still apes?" is quite easy. Only some of those long ago apes were forced out of the forrest and into the savanah and on those individuals, the loosers in the struggle to hold a forrest territory, different selective forces came into effect from their different environment. These forces made us evolve into humans by gradual stages, generation by generation while the long ago apes in the forrest kept the same environmental forces that made them apes originally and so they stayed much closer to their 6 million years ago ancestors. It is an easy enough idea but many people seem unable to think about things that take hundreds or thousands of generations to achieve.

In general only a minority of the scientifically inclined go into teaching and so maths or biology teachers might often have trained in history or physical education. Then they teach without real understanding of evolution or the scientific method, or the nature of evidence and falsification of ideas.

There is a physicist who goes round schools demonstrating to physics teachers that even their relatively advanced students don't actually understand what the teachers think they have taught about the basic principles behind the lessons. One example was to get the students to draw a simple electrical circuit with a switch, a bulb and a battery immediately after a lecture on the basis of a circuit. The majority did not manage to connect the components so that a circuit was formed. That was in a teachers training college. Another was to ask students where the material for a tree weighing several tons had come from. They didn't really know but the majority guess was that earth was converted into wood and leaves.

On this basis you can't hope for too much from TV programs. The ignorance is not just of evolution but of any kind of science. And the idea that people as a whole might understand the scientific method and the scientific meaning of proof and truth is just too much to hope for. And then there are the Greens of course where a misunderstanding of science and evidence are the basis for a political movement and the socialists where a misunderstanding of the nature of progress and economics are equally the basis of an even more dangerous political movement.

For the most part the people who get into TV are arts graduates who know nothing of science. When they then produce programs or interview people about topics like evolution they think they know what they are talking about but don't understand the basics.

Ho hum!

English

That pretty much sums up the problem. If you don't understand evolution you just need to try harder but you have to really want to understand and you can't do that with hangups in the way. Same as with algebra or rocket science or anything else. Strange that you never see people who have no clue of algebra adamantly claiming that x actually = 100 when the consensus of mathematicians agree that x=200 or that the escape velocity of earth is nowhere the 25,000 mph that the people that can do those calculations will tell you. They simply have no outside motivation not to take scientists at their word not to mention the fact that it's hard for even the most ignorant people to say somebody hasn't a clue what they're doing when they go through the mind boggling order of operations needed to drop a rover on Mars and proceed to take it for a spin.

With things like evolution and climate change there's much motivation to not accept facts that have been arrived at by exactly the same method that non-controversial science uses. It isn't a matter of inability to understand but a major motivation to disbelieve because of the "holy" nature of the question being asked as well as the implied responsibility that many would like to avoid by remaining under the umbrella of ignorance. We put jobs in the hands of the best and brightest every day and think nothing of fully trusting them even when they come back with very unwanted news like in the case of a dire medical diagnosis or advise to take a plea from a lawyer.

It's not really enough to have the ability to understand. You have to want to accept whatever answer you get based on the data regardless of what it may be.

packsaddle
08-27-2012, 17:25
You have to want to accept whatever answer you get based on the data regardless of what it may be.

That goes both ways.

And it's not the data that's the issue, it's the interpretation of the data.

take care.

Bren
08-28-2012, 09:37
That goes both ways.

And it's not the data that's the issue, it's the interpretation of the data.

take care.

Well, I'm always up for a good evolution vs. creation debate. How do you interpret the data to show a god or gods created us?

IhRedrider
08-28-2012, 21:41
Paddlesack,
Please vacate this thread, it was started by an atheist for atheists. Do not bother them when they are in devotional. They don't harass you while you are in a prayer meeting, please return them the favor.

Bren
08-29-2012, 04:26
Paddlesack,
Please vacate this thread, it was started by an atheist for atheists. Do not bother them when they are in devotional. They don't harass you while you are in a prayer meeting, please return them the favor.

In other words, you can't support what you believe and, obviously, neither can he.:rofl:

Japle
08-29-2012, 18:04
Posted by Bren:
Technically, the title should say "creationists" but I've never heard an anti-evolution debate from any who aren't Christians.
Look up “Lamarckism”. Stalin (certainly not a Christian) required the teaching of Lamarckism – otherwise known as Lysenkoism – over evolution because he thought he could use the principle to create the perfect race of Communists. The result was the murder of millions.

Evolution has only been rejected for religious and political reasons; never for scientific reasons.

Green_Manelishi
08-29-2012, 20:20
In the debates on evolution, the "creation" side typically shows a misunderstanding of the most basic concepts of either evolution or the scientific method

The "scientific" world simply ignores the scientific method when evolution is being discussed.

Animal Mother
08-29-2012, 20:46
The "scientific" world simply ignores the scientific method when evolution is being discussed.An excellent illustration of the point Bren was making. Well done, GM.

English
08-30-2012, 04:26
Look up “Lamarckism”. Stalin (certainly not a Christian) required the teaching of Lamarckism – otherwise known as Lysenkoism – over evolution because he thought he could use the principle to create the perfect race of Communists. The result was the murder of millions.

Evolution has only been rejected for religious and political reasons; never for scientific reasons.

As I keep saying, Communism is a religion and not a "scientific" form of government. It has its holy book which is not to be questioned. One of its beliefs was that people could be perfected by their own efforts. Lamarckism was the inevitable outcome given a suitably dishonest scientist. Lamarckism was no more than a side show to the great deception. It was not Lamarckism which resulted in the murder of millions but Communism under Stalin. After his death, the rate of state murder dropped to less than half his rate if I remember corectly.

English

dbcooper
08-30-2012, 08:25
I think a large part of the problem is that the idea to acknowledge evolution is seen as being equal to saying there is no God, that the science of evolution is an attempt to prove there is no God when that simply is not the case.

Gunhaver
08-30-2012, 08:54
That goes both ways.

And it's not the data that's the issue, it's the interpretation of the data.

take care.

Science has a thing called peer review where only the opinions of people that really know what they're talking about are considered and the result is that science moves forward and gives us useful stuff like satellite radio and medicine and junk like that.

Religion lets anybody have their own interpretation of scriptures and the result is over 30,000 branches of Christianity alone and they can't even agree on what foods to eat or what kind of hats to wear let alone pray our cell phones smaller.

Green_Manelishi
08-30-2012, 09:00
I think a large part of the problem is that the idea to acknowledge evolution is seen as being equal to saying there is no God, that the science of evolution is an attempt to prove there is no God when that simply is not the case.

:rofl:

You are obviously not paying attention to the evolutionists.

You are also parsing words. it is not possible to "prove there is no God". Evolutionists do however proceed from the initial premise "there is no God". They will even intelligently design experiments to prove that under the right conditions (which just happened to happen) life could simply begin. From there it's a series of leaps to conclusions that slime became this, which begot that, which morphed into something completely different.

Bren
08-30-2012, 09:01
I think a large part of the problem is that the idea to acknowledge evolution is seen as being equal to saying there is no God, that the science of evolution is an attempt to prove there is no God when that simply is not the case.

It seems so easy to reconcile their religion with science, I can only imagine that a lack of scientific education and a lifetime of assuming the bible was intended to be literal truth combine to creat "creationists."

Don't they ever wake up and say "hey, if creating the earth in 7 days, 6,000 years ago was just a sort of allegorical explanation, then it actually fits right in with science." the world being "void and without form" and then life starting in the oceans, etc., etc. Heck, it would even avoid all of the nagging defects in biblical creation.

Bren
08-30-2012, 09:05
:rofl:

You are obviously not paying attention to the evolutionists.

You are also parsing words. it is not possible to "prove there is no God". Evolutionists do however proceed from the initial premise "there is no God". They will even intelligently design experiments to prove that under the right conditions (which just happened to happen) life could simply begin. From there it's a series of leaps to conclusions that slime became this, which begot that, which morphed into something completely different.

One of you isn't paying attention. That one would be you. Evolution/science makes no attempt to prove there is no god. Science is not concerned with prooving anything about gods, because there is no evidence of them to be tested, in the first place. If science incidentally proves that "god" explanations are not needed to understand natural phenomena, that is an effect, not the goal.

Vic Hays
08-30-2012, 09:10
Science has a thing called peer review where only the opinions of people that really know what they're talking about are considered and the result is that science moves forward and gives us useful stuff like satellite radio and medicine and junk like that.


Modern science has a way of stifling anyone who does not agree with the party line. Time has a way of sifting out the true from the junk.

Daniel 1:17 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
1:18 Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar.
1:19 And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king.
1:20 And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.

Green_Manelishi
08-30-2012, 10:03
Evolution/science makes no attempt to prove there is no god. Science is not concerned with proving anything about gods, because there is no evidence of them to be tested, in the first place. If science incidentally proves that "god" explanations are not needed to understand natural phenomena, that is an effect, not the goal.

Once again I ask myself why cast pearls before swine, or debate with raving and drooling dogs?

High-Gear
08-30-2012, 12:57
Once again I ask myself why cast pearls before swine, or debate with raving and drooling dogs?

You have offered no pearls. You simply showed your ignorance of science with unsupported claims, then turned to name calling when challenged. Hardly a debate.

Animal Mother
08-30-2012, 21:30
Modern science has a way of stifling anyone who does not agree with the party line. Perhaps you could share some evidence of this happening, rather than Bible verses.
Time has a way of sifting out the true from the junk. And yet creationists keep returning to the same absurd claims about dinosaur footprints and polystrate fossils instead of producing any evidence to validate their claims.

Alpine
08-30-2012, 21:54
OK, I'll play along. A creature that is not human cannot gave birth to a human. That leads me to believe the theory that humans evolved from lesser life forms is false.

Geko45
08-30-2012, 21:58
OK, I'll play along. A creature that is not human cannot gave birth to a human. That leads me to believe the theory that humans evolved from lesser life forms is false.

Wow, what a total failure to understand what the theory postulates.

Foxtrotx1
08-30-2012, 21:59
My problem with how evolution is generally presented is that it always seems to be anthropomorphised into an intelligent force that is moving us "forward". That is not the case at all. There is no "forward" or "backward" when it comes to evolution. It is an entirely dispassionate effect that is the culmination of a million probabilities playing themselves out. A species either thrives or dies without any objective truth to that being either a "good" or "bad" thing. It just is.

The dinosaurs were given a turn of events that they couldn't adapt to and now they are gone. Likewise, we will eventually be presented with something that we can't handle and will be gone too. Hopefully that is after a few billion year run for the species, but if it doesn't work out that way then oh well.

We will most certainly be classified as a different species within the next hundred thousand years.

Geko45
08-30-2012, 22:02
We will most certainly be classified as a different species within the next hundred thousand years.

Or we'll be extinct. Either way, the universe will go on with nary a notice.

Foxtrotx1
08-30-2012, 22:07
Or we'll be extinct. Either way, the universe will go on with nary a notice.

True! I find it interesting however, that when humans see us in 20 thousand years they may very well see our anatomy and features as "barbaric."

Geko45
08-30-2012, 22:16
True! I find it interesting however, that when humans see us in 20 thousand years they may very well see our anatomy and features as "barbaric."

Some more than others methinks.

:whistling:

Alpine
08-30-2012, 22:45
Wow, what a total failure to understand what the theory postulates.

If you agree with my assertion that a non-human did not and cannot give birth to a human, then how did the first human come to be?

Gunhaver
08-30-2012, 22:51
OK, I'll play along. A creature that is not human cannot gave birth to a human. That leads me to believe the theory that humans evolved from lesser life forms is false.

Actually, that's exactly what did happen and it's still happening with every species on earth. At some point every species was birthed by something that wasn't quite genetically the same species. Not the monkeys giving birth to humans scenario that's commonly put forth by morons but if you did a DNA test on all humans and identified a specific set of genetic markers common to them all, you could say that having all of those markers is what's required to be considered human. At some point in the past someone just shy of all the requisite markers gave birth to someone with all of the requisite markers and we have the first true human. It's really such a gradual process with so many specimens to consider that that's the only way to draw a fine line between human and not human.

Geko45
08-30-2012, 22:55
If you agree with my assertion that a non-human did not and cannot give birth to a human, then how did the first human come to be?

It's a false dichotomy fallacy, you suppose that either a nonhuman at some point gave birth to a human OR we came about through some other means. Your argument attempts to preclude the possibility of subtle drift in genetic features over hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of generations.

Foxtrotx1
08-30-2012, 22:56
If you agree with my assertion that a non-human did not and cannot give birth to a human, then how did the first human come to be?

For the same reason that a car doesn't go from 0 to 60 in 0 seconds.

Gradual change.

Nothing is black and white.

Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Animal Mother
08-30-2012, 23:19
OK, I'll play along. A creature that is not human cannot gave birth to a human. What would prevent that from happening?
That leads me to believe the theory that humans evolved from lesser life forms is false.Lesser life forms? No. Different life forms? Yes. In fact, all the available evidence supports that conclusion.

steveksux
08-30-2012, 23:29
Once again I ask myself why cast pearls before swine, or debate with raving and drooling dogs?Because they might fall for your specious arguments that the evolutionists keep poking holes in?

Randy

nmk
08-30-2012, 23:43
Exactly my complaint. They tend to use words that imply species "choosing" and changing themselves or "needing" to change - even words like "adapt" leave out the part where we adapt by those who aren't suitable dying, even including whole species. Using better terminology might go along way to helping people understand that the tree of evolution is shaped by pruning shears.


That's a pretty good line - "the tree of evolution is shaped by pruning shears." Feel free to use it.:supergrin:

Who is "they"? I have been intimately familiar with the evolution course at my university for years and I have never heard anyone say something that inaccurate. High school level? Earlier? To steal TBO's line....false flag?

Alpine
08-30-2012, 23:45
It's a false dichotomy fallacy, you suppose that either a nonhuman at some point gave birth to a human OR we came about through some other means. Your argument attempts to preclude the possibility of subtle drift in genetic features over hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of generations.

Good job. The only logical way to refute my point is to assert that there is no clear distinction between humans and other creatures.

However, that goes against all empirical evidence, and I believe that is the source of much of the continuing skepticism about Darwin's theory.

Alpine
08-30-2012, 23:51
For the same reason that a car doesn't go from 0 to 60 in 0 seconds.

Gradual change.

Nothing is black and white.

Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Who built the car? Whose foot is on the pedal? Are you suggesting there is a being who created humans through the process of evolution? I am willling to entertain that possiblity, unlikely as it sounds. Are you?

Animal Mother
08-31-2012, 00:57
Good job. The only logical way to refute my point is to assert that there is no clear distinction between humans and other creatures. Are you claiming that simply by looking at them you could discern a H.Sapien Sapien from an H. Sapien Neanderthal or a H. Erectus or H. Habilis?
However, that goes against all empirical evidence, and I believe that is the source of much of the continuing skepticism about Darwin's theory.What empirical evidence? If you have evidence contrary to the modern evolutionary theory, share it, that would greatly strengthen the anti-evolutionary position.

Gunhaver
08-31-2012, 01:30
Good job. The only logical way to refute my point is to assert that there is no clear distinction between humans and other creatures.

However, that goes against all empirical evidence, and I believe that is the source of much of the continuing skepticism about Darwin's theory.

What's the distinction?

High-Gear
08-31-2012, 03:34
Good job. The only logical way to refute my point is to assert that there is no clear distinction between humans and other creatures.

However, that goes against all empirical evidence, and I believe that is the source of much of the continuing skepticism about Darwin's theory.

The only people who are skeptical are morons. We understand more about evolution than we do about gravity. I bet you don't doubt gravity do you? Unless you would like to convert to my church and learn all about Intelligent Falling, and help me get it taught in school.

dbcooper
08-31-2012, 07:03
One of you isn't paying attention. That one would be you. Evolution/science makes no attempt to prove there is no god. Science is not concerned with prooving anything about gods, because there is no evidence of them to be tested, in the first place. If science incidentally proves that "god" explanations are not needed to understand natural phenomena, that is an effect, not the goal.

Exactly.

Geko45
08-31-2012, 07:10
However, that goes against all empirical evidence, and I believe that is the source of much of the continuing skepticism about Darwin's theory.

What empirical evidence? If you have evidence contrary to the modern evolutionary theory, share it, that would greatly strengthen the anti-evolutionary position.

Yes, I would like to see this empirical evidence as well as I'm not currently aware of any.

Bren
08-31-2012, 10:06
We will most certainly be classified as a different species within the next hundred thousand years.

We will some day, but you share a fault with the creationists - failing to comprehend the time frames involved. 100,000 years? it took about a million and a half to get from walking upright hominids to homo sapiens. Much of that change is believed to have resulted from an unstable environment. I'm no scientist, but I'd expect modern humans, with no predators to fear but each other, and the ability to protect ourselves from the environment, to change even slower.

Bren
08-31-2012, 10:15
Good job. The only logical way to refute my point is to assert that there is no clear distinction between humans and other creatures.

However, that goes against all empirical evidence, and I believe that is the source of much of the continuing skepticism about Darwin's theory.

If you get your "empirical evidence" from scientists, you'll be surprised to find how little difference there is between us and other animals. Look at the genetics - humans and chimps have over 98% identical DNA and their evolutionary branches separated over 4,000,000 years ago. However, even cats dogs and cattle are 80-90% genetically identical to you. A fruit fly and a human share about 60% of the same DNA.

For something that doesn't take a scientist or special equipment, look at a human skeleton next to a chimp and a dog and a whale and whatever else you can find. The similarity os hard to miss. Look at their organs and systems, reproduction, etc. The evidence is right in front of you, every day, you just have to explore it.

Geko45
08-31-2012, 10:18
I'm no scientist, but I'd expect modern humans, with no predators to fear but each other, and the ability to protect ourselves from the environment, to change even slower.

Or rather, adapt to the environment we create for ourselves.

SDGlock23
08-31-2012, 11:03
It's not uncommon as this thread demonstrates that there is a thought that not buying into evolution is akin to someone being simply ignorant and not understanding the greatness that is (the lie of) evolution, whether due to wording or general ignorance.

Atheism's standards are essentially identical to satanism/luciferianism, which has a fundamental core belief of someone living by their own standards. That sounds an awful lot like atheism to me.

The ancient pagan gods of the Sumerians and Babylonians, etc were the first to bring about this concept that would much later become known as evolution. Starting point here is Gen 6:4, and is key to unlocking many of the mysteries contained in the Word of God. But why did these fallen angels and their offspring do this? They desired the worship of the peoples and in doing so, knew that it would get their attention away from the one true living God. (Romans 1:18+) At the same time the y corrupted the DNA of mankind (Gen 6:9), and Noah and his family were the only ones perfect in their generations (Gen 6:9) meaning their DNA wasn't corrupted.

The ancient Greeks and Romans also were heavily influenced and persuaded by these fallen ones and developed a materialist philosophy. They believed matter was the original source of life and to further their belief, inherited the idea of "evolution" brought about by the pagan religions, or more correctly the fallen angels.

Insert freemasonry as it pays homage to Lucifer and involves many occult practices and according to famous masons, the teachings of freemasonry are very much the same as old Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Greek mystery religions. Now it's no real secret Darwinism has it's roots in freemasonry, and because of that, would also be deeply rooted in pagan beliefs/religions. Darwin simply popularized the ongoing ancient belief the fallen angels brought about long before.

Put two and two together here and it's obvious the whole thing from Freemasonry to Darwinism, communism and everything in between is done for one sole purpose. The mastermind behind it all? The fallen one himself, Lucifer....already defeated but looking to steal, kill and destroy as many as who are blind to his wiles. After all if he can convince one to believe he or God doesn't exist, he's won and the person deceived. Belief in evolution, the systems strategy to try and destroy the Bible, will destroy in a persons life any belief in the creation account of the Bible, the fall of man and the plan of redemption provided by Yeshua in one fell swoop. (John 10:10)

Aliens are fallen angels as well, and will come back just as they did so long ago and they will feed mankind the lie that they are in fact our creators and have been supervising our "evolution" and are here to bring about the next stage of it. This is, I believe, the 2 Thes 2:11 great deception that God will send upon the earth. Repent while there is still time.

Gunhaver
08-31-2012, 11:09
It's not uncommon as this thread demonstrates that there is a thought that not buying into evolution is akin to someone being simply ignorant and not understanding the greatness that is the (lie) of evolution, whether due to wording or general ignorance.

Atheism's standards are essentially identical to satanism/luciferianism, which has a fundamental core belief of someone living by their own standards. That sounds an awful lot like atheism to me.

The ancient pagan gods of the Sumerians and Babylonians, etc were the first to bring about this concept that would much later become known as evolution. Starting point here is Gen 6:4, and is key to unlocking many of the mysteries contained the in Word of God. But why did these fallen angels and their offspring do this? They desired the worship of the peoples and in doing so, knew that it would get their attention away from the one true living God. (Romans 1:18+)

The ancient Greeks and Romans also were heavily influenced and persuaded by these fallen ones and developed a materialist philosophy. They believed matter was the original source of life and to further their belief, inherited the idea of "evolution" brought about by the pagan religions, or more correctly the fallen angels.

Insert freemasonry as it pays homage to Lucifer and involves many occult practices and according to famous masons, the teachings of freemasonry are very much the same as old Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Greek mystery religions. Now it's no real secret Darwinism has it's roots in freemasonry, and because of that, would also be deeply rooted in pagan beliefs/religions. Darwin simply popularized the ongoing ancient belief the fallen angels brought about long before.

Put two and two together here and it's obvious the whole thing from Freemasonry to Darwinism, communism and everything in between is done for one sole purpose. The mastermind behind it all? The fallen one himself, Lucifer....already defeated but looking to steal, kill and destroy as many as who are blind to his wiles. After all if he can convince one to believe he or God doesn't exist, he's won and the person deceived. Belief in evolution, the systems strategy to try and destroy the Bible, will destroy in a persons life any belief in the creation account of the Bible, the fall of man and the plan of redemption provided by Yeshua in one fell swoop. (John 10:10)

Aliens are fallen angels as well, and will come back just as they did so long ago and they will feed mankind the lie that they are in fact our creators and have been supervising our "evolution" and are here to bring about the next stage of it. This is, I believe, the 2 Thes 2:11 great deception that God will send upon the earth. Repent while there is still time.

So in a nutshell this whole rant is just the old "Satan put those fossils there to fool us" argument. M'kay. :crazy:

dbcooper
08-31-2012, 11:44
It's not uncommon as this thread demonstrates that there is a thought that not buying into evolution is akin to someone being simply ignorant and not understanding the greatness that is the (lie) of evolution, whether due to wording or general ignorance.

Atheism's standards are essentially identical to satanism/luciferianism, which has a fundamental core belief of someone living by their own standards. That sounds an awful lot like atheism to me.

The ancient pagan gods of the Sumerians and Babylonians, etc were the first to bring about this concept that would much later become known as evolution. Starting point here is Gen 6:4, and is key to unlocking many of the mysteries contained the in Word of God. But why did these fallen angels and their offspring do this? They desired the worship of the peoples and in doing so, knew that it would get their attention away from the one true living God. (Romans 1:18+)

The ancient Greeks and Romans also were heavily influenced and persuaded by these fallen ones and developed a materialist philosophy. They believed matter was the original source of life and to further their belief, inherited the idea of "evolution" brought about by the pagan religions, or more correctly the fallen angels.

Insert freemasonry as it pays homage to Lucifer and involves many occult practices and according to famous masons, the teachings of freemasonry are very much the same as old Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Greek mystery religions. Now it's no real secret Darwinism has it's roots in freemasonry, and because of that, would also be deeply rooted in pagan beliefs/religions. Darwin simply popularized the ongoing ancient belief the fallen angels brought about long before.

Put two and two together here and it's obvious the whole thing from Freemasonry to Darwinism, communism and everything in between is done for one sole purpose. The mastermind behind it all? The fallen one himself, Lucifer....already defeated but looking to steal, kill and destroy as many as who are blind to his wiles. After all if he can convince one to believe he or God doesn't exist, he's won and the person deceived. Belief in evolution, the systems strategy to try and destroy the Bible, will destroy in a persons life any belief in the creation account of the Bible, the fall of man and the plan of redemption provided by Yeshua in one fell swoop. (John 10:10)

Aliens are fallen angels as well, and will come back just as they did so long ago and they will feed mankind the lie that they are in fact our creators and have been supervising our "evolution" and are here to bring about the next stage of it. This is, I believe, the 2 Thes 2:11 great deception that God will send upon the earth. Repent while there is still time.


This is exactly the point. The simple beauty of evolution through the process of natural selection, changes produced when a group becomes reproductively isolated, is NOT a statement that God does not exist, that it is not possible for a God or Gods to exist, or that there is no way some God or Gods did or did not start the process. It only points out that the evolution of species is verifiable through scientific study involving multiple disciplines and when the question of a designer is involved there is no known scientific method to test and verify or disprove it.

A faith that can't stand up in the light of evolution is a shallow faith indeed.

NMG26
08-31-2012, 11:50
A faith that can't stand up in the light of evolution is a shallow faith indeed.

QFA again!


.

Geko45
08-31-2012, 12:14
So in a nutshell this whole rant is just the old "Satan put those fossils there to fool us" argument. M'kay. :crazy:

I'd classify that one as more of a "if it ain't the lord's work then it musta been of de debil!"

Bren
08-31-2012, 13:26
This is exactly the point. The simple beauty of evolution through the process of natural selection, changes produced when a group becomes reproductively isolated, is NOT a statement that God does not exist, that it is not possible for a God or Gods to exist, or that there is no way some God or Gods did or did not start the process. It only points out that the evolution of species is verifiable through scientific study involving multiple disciplines and when the question of a designer is involved there is no known scientific method to test and verify or disprove it.

A faith that can't stand up in the light of evolution is a shallow faith indeed.

I think I pointed out, somewhere, than an intelliegent christian could, and it seems many do, reconclie evolution and the bible. Those who try to claim the bible is the literal truth...even when we know how it was assembled and a lot of other information that calls its authority into question and even when the evidence clearly shows it is not literal truth...are, by definition, not intelligent christians.

Claiming "evolution ain't real," is no different than claiming we stay on the earth because it's flat and God decreed that up is up and down is down. In fact, the anti-gravity argument might be stronger.

Alpine
08-31-2012, 20:57
What's the distinction?

Darwin would be a better authority on that than me.

I will go with:
Creativity (music, technology, art).
Large-scale manipulation of the environment.
The ability to communicate abstract concepts.
Built-in desire to learn and explore (from ancient polynesian canoeists to the Curiosity rover).

These are some of the distinctions that make the human race qualitatively different than all other known life forms. Yes, there are apes that use etch-a-sketches and ant hills are famously well-organized, but I don't think anyone would seriously compare the bill or rights or the internet to honey.

Alpine
08-31-2012, 21:14
The only people who are skeptical are morons. We understand more about evolution than we do about gravity. I bet you don't doubt gravity do you? Unless you would like to convert to my church and learn all about Intelligent Falling, and help me get it taught in school.

The existence of gravity and to some extent its nature can be proven through experiments, and the results can be duplicated by other scientists. Not so with the theory that humans evolved from other life forms.

Animal Mother
09-01-2012, 03:56
Darwin would be a better authority on that than me.

I will go with:
Creativity (music, technology, art).
Large-scale manipulation of the environment.
The ability to communicate abstract concepts.
Built-in desire to learn and explore (from ancient polynesian canoeists to the Curiosity rover).

These are some of the distinctions that make the human race qualitatively different than all other known life forms. Yes, there are apes that use etch-a-sketches and ant hills are famously well-organized, but I don't think anyone would seriously compare the bill or rights or the internet to honey. There used to be an elephant at the Phoenix Zoo that painted pictures. Would she qualify as human in your estimation?

Using your conditions, humans have only been "human" for about 10,000 years. Before that were they indistinguishable from other animals?

Animal Mother
09-01-2012, 03:59
The existence of gravity and to some extent its nature can be proven through experiments, and the results can be duplicated by other scientists. Not so with the theory that humans evolved from other life forms. Experiments in human evolution are going on all the time, and they all uniformly support the modern evolutionary synthesis, from DNA analysis of modern human populations to genome sequencing and morphological analysis of earlier hominids.

Bren
09-01-2012, 06:10
The existence of gravity and to some extent its nature can be proven through experiments, and the results can be duplicated by other scientists. Not so with the theory that humans evolved from other life forms.

Yeah, I mean, if we could observe the effects of evolution, you'd think we'd be abe to prove it by taking a plant or animal and changing its characterists through selection. Using artificial selection to show how natural selection would work in a larger context. While to actually change one aniumal to a new species naturally takes millions of years, we could at least see the short term effect and extrapolate from that.


But if that was possible, next thing you know, there'd be people intentionally doing that to get show dogs and race horses and such (heck, you'd probably have nutty Europeans recreating extinct horse types or Americans making wolves out of dogs without breeding with wolves) - that's ridiculous.


Good job googling up your arguments, by the way.

I know, you were hoping for lab guys in white coats, but...oh yeah, they've been confrming evolution in labs since before your grandfather was born.

How about something very important and fundamental - how did single-celled creatures become multicellular?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/multicellular-life_n_1213355.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html


But, but, how about even more fundamental - the whole idea of life arising from non-life is based on the thoery that, in the environmental conditions that existed before life, amino acids, the basic building blocks of proteins, could form spontaneously. You'd think somebody would just whip up proof of that in a lab . . . in Chicago . . . 80+ years ago . . .(and repeat it many times since). Somewhere in there it says the only surprise was how easy it was.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html

Here's a hint: Even creationists accept microevolution - otherwise they'd be at war with farmers, in addition to scientists and educated people - evolution is going on all around you and both natural and artificial selection are observable. Creationists just claim there is some magic wall, when you can intentionally turn a wolf into a basset hound in no time, but in a million or 5 million years it can't change enough to be classified as a new species. As I udnerstand the creationist piosition, it's - we reject all of evolution...except the part that can be readily observed in a short time, right in front of us.:rofl:

Bren
09-01-2012, 06:38
If any of you actually want to understand more about evolution - if only so you can argue against it better than the posters here - Carl Sagan's Cosmos series is available for streaming on Netflix. Try Episode 2: "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue (http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/70224651?strkid=1464313473_0_0&trkid=222336&movieid=70224651)."

You might also try "Evolution" from PBS (http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Evolution/70045521?strkid=196624971_1_0&strackid=678821aa38209e61_1_srl&trkid=222336)

There are plenty more. I even found one from the Intelligent Design nuts and I intend to watch it to see if their is anything in their ranting that I don't already know.

Vic Hays
09-01-2012, 08:56
The existence of gravity and to some extent its nature can be proven through experiments, and the results can be duplicated by other scientists. Not so with the theory that humans evolved from other life forms.

You are arguing with a group that have no faith and are intent upon destroying yours.
Their argument is that if you could only see things their way you would give up your faith in God.
They see no need for a Creator or a Savior other than themselves and their own intellect.
Any evidence that you can present will be disregarded by them. They are lost.

steveksux
09-01-2012, 09:31
You are arguing with a group that have no faith and are intent upon destroying yours.
Their argument is that if you could only see things their way you would give up your faith in God.
They see no need for a Creator or a Savior other than themselves and their own intellect.
Any evidence that you can present will be disregarded by them. They are lost.You are totally clueless about what the actual argument is. Here's a hint: If you want to do a remake of the Wizard of Oz, you need more characters than an army of strawmen. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Catholic church acknowledges evolution. Did you know that the Catholic Church still believes in God? It's true!!!! You can google that!

Evolutionary theory states absolutely nothing about God. For all evolutionists know, God set up the physical laws of the universe such that evolution could occur and eventually produce humanity.

Randy

NMG26
09-01-2012, 10:05
Evolutionary theory states absolutely nothing about God. For all evolutionists know, God set up the physical laws of the universe such that evolution could occur and eventually produce humanity.

Randy

Christianity is always fighting because that is it's nature. Dualism. Good and evil. There is theism that is not based in dualism. Evolution is not a threat to a non-dualistic theist.



.

High-Gear
09-01-2012, 14:30
The existence of gravity and to some extent its nature can be proven through experiments, and the results can be duplicated by other scientists. Not so with the theory that humans evolved from other life forms.

Wrong, evolution has been observed, replicated, and predictions can be made based on the understanding of it. Google it.

High-Gear
09-01-2012, 14:34
You are arguing with a group that have no faith and are intent upon destroying yours.
Their argument is that if you could only see things their way you would give up your faith in God.
They see no need for a Creator or a Savior other than themselves and their own intellect.
Any evidence that you can present will be disregarded by them. They are lost.

Vic,
The problem is no evidence is ever offered to the contrary, only statements about how we are going to burn in hell.

Bren
09-01-2012, 15:11
You are arguing with a group that have no faith and are intent upon destroying yours.
Their argument is that if you could only see things their way you would give up your faith in God.
They see no need for a Creator or a Savior other than themselves and their own intellect.
Any evidence that you can present will be disregarded by them. They are lost.

And, of course, you shouldn't give up your faith in God, because that would be bad, because (point A) God said so, and we know that because we believe in God and, even though there is no evidence he exists, we have faith that he does and we must have because (return to point A and repeat).

Nobody has ever presented evidence of a god or gods to anybody, I doubt Glock Talk will be the first place it happens.

Green_Manelishi
09-01-2012, 15:28
Wrong, evolution has been observed, replicated, and predictions can be made based on the understanding of it. Google it.

I did.

:rofl:

Bren
09-01-2012, 15:37
I did.

:rofl:

Are you proud that you weren't able to find the answer, or that you weren't able to understand it?

If you didn't find it, I linked a few articles and a couple of streamable documentaries from Netflix above. If you didn't understand what you found, I can't help you.

Animal Mother
09-01-2012, 16:53
Any evidence that you can present will be disregarded by them. They are lost.Let's test this hypothesis. Try presenting some evidence.

Foxtrotx1
09-01-2012, 17:02
Who built the car? Whose foot is on the pedal? Are you suggesting there is a being who created humans through the process of evolution? I am willling to entertain that possiblity, unlikely as it sounds. Are you?

God i'm glad I don't live in a trailer.

Kingarthurhk
09-01-2012, 17:12
So in a nutshell this whole rant is just the old "Satan put those fossils there to fool us" argument. M'kay. :crazy:

Actually, no, there is quite a bit of evidence that the dinosaur remains discovered today were destroyed in a vast cataclysm. On that point there is agreement. On how that occurred, there isn't.

What is often ignored is that oceanic life and land dwelling dinsosaur life are found smashed together in the same layer of rock on what is present day dry land. Also, there is back pedeling over the live blood cells and marrow found in dinosaur bones to say, "Oh, well, I guess soft tissue and blood cells can exist for millions of years," which is both arrogant and ignorant in an attempt to hold on to a preconceived notion.

The problem is science has stopped becomming an honest pursuit of knowledge, and now it is, "How can we support our Atheist view?" The irony is, this is what Atheists accuse Creationists of doing.

NMG26
09-01-2012, 17:13
Let's test this hypothesis. Try presenting some evidence.


He is talking about Bible evidence.

It is all he has.

It makes him happy.



.

English
09-01-2012, 17:47
The existence of gravity and to some extent its nature can be proven through experiments, and the results can be duplicated by other scientists. Not so with the theory that humans evolved from other life forms.

Gravity follows an inverse square law and is proportional to the mass of the gravitational body. So its behaviour is extremely simple. Its nature is much more complex and not fully understood, but it is almost certainly a function of some fundamental particle which we cannot see and can infer only by smashing atoms with phenomonally expensive equipment and observing the tracks that their fundamental building blocks leave under extreme magnetic fields in cloud chambers. We could say that they do not really exist because we can never see them.

In contrast we know a huge ammount about the origin of life on this planet and of the way in which multicellular organisms came into existence. We know how DNA specifies proteins and we know how protein production is turned on and off by the cell in response to its environment or its internal development. We know that this process is common to all life as we know it.

Once upon a time there were only two kinds of micro-organisms, the bacteria and the archaea. For the majpr part of the existence of life on Earth, there were no other life forms. In an incredibly unlikely accident two cells, one from each family, fused and the result, the eukaryote family, is the basis of all multicellular life: you, me, sea urchins, worms, birds, lions, dinosaurs and so on for millions of distinct species and genera. And so we are all related since that first eucaryote was the common ancestor to all multicellular life. We are descended from things like chimpanzees, before that by things like lemurs, before that by things like mice, and before that by things like worms.

We know the relatedness of different organisms in terms of the number of genes they share. In general the lower the proportion of shared genes, the less the relatedness and the greate distance in time to a mutual common ancestor. We share 15% of our DNA with plants and, if I remember correctly, 50% with mice and 98% with chimpanzees.

There are two explanations for this knowledge of fact. One is evolution. This has a known system which is no harder to understand than the fact that gravity follows the inverse sqaure law and is proportional to mass. We understand a huge ammount about the way that this occurs at a genetic level - unlike Darwin who elucidated only the two basic elements of random variation and natural selection. We even know that it is consistent with information theory. There is so much interlocking knowledge that fits with the geological record, the fossil record, and geological evidence of catastrophic world events that it is virtually imossible for any moderately intelligent open mided individual to believe it to be anything but true.

And then we have the religious explanation that all of these present and lost life forms were created by a God. Some of us might think this unlikely, but by stretching the explanation we can make it fit the facts. Doing that means that after creating the cosmos and the Earth within it, God created the bacteria and the archaea then watched their development for most of the time in which life on Earth existed. Then he got more ambitious when he realised the interesting possibilities of combining the two. In a comparbly brief time there was a huge variety of multicellular life. New forms were created at a dramatic and increasing rate. And then a bollide strike killed of most of them, only for the survivors to produce a further massive diversification shortly afterwards. And then be nearly destroyed again. And again. If this was all done under the control of God, who must have been able to control bollide strikes if he could create the cosmos, he must have been a capricious and playful God with no empathy for mortal creatures.

All of this depends on evidence from fossils, geological evidence of catastrophies - of which the Yucatan strike was only one- and the change in the fossil record in the relatively short time after the catastrophe. That is, there was evidence of a great die off followed by a rapid radiation of new species. Each such radiation is the signature of evolution at work once there are new living spaces to fill. But it could also be our playful God who has figuratively wiped the blackboard and drawn some new pictures because he was boored with the old ones.

Probably everything that we count as evidence for evolution by natural selection could have been created by a godlike figure, let us call it the devil, in order to lead people away from their faith by leading us to believe materialistic explanations for the existence of everything. But if he did this he had to be far more dilligent and clever than God to plant self consistently varied fossils of life forms all over the planet. He had also to create the coal fields, and the oil and natural gas deposits. He had to make copper mines consistent with having been created by the strike of a very large meteor.

The God and Devil explanation is far beyond rational belief, but it also shows that our God would be a very unpleasant entity with no more concern for us than he had for the dinosaurs.

Apart from that, what kind of godlike entity would care whether creatures like us worshipped him or not?

The facts are out there for you to apply your mind to. They are easier to understand than the theory of fundamental particles and are at least as substantial as gravity.

English

Vic Hays
09-02-2012, 14:23
Vic,
The problem is no evidence is ever offered to the contrary, only statements about how we are going to burn in hell.

I have offered irrefutable evidence.

It has been simply ignored at least by others.

I have come to the conclusion that most atheists have an agenda of denying the existence of God evidence or not.

If you will take an honest look at some evidence I will present it in another thread.

Geko45
09-02-2012, 14:39
The facts are out there for you to apply your mind to. They are easier to understand than the theory of fundamental particles and are at least as substantial as gravity.

An articulate and well written treatise. I enjoyed reading it.

Animal Mother
09-02-2012, 18:46
Actually, no, there is quite a bit of evidence that the dinosaur remains discovered today were destroyed in a vast cataclysm. On that point there is agreement. On how that occurred, there isn't. What evidence? Just saying evidence exists isn't the same as actually producing it.
What is often ignored is that oceanic life and land dwelling dinsosaur life are found smashed together in the same layer of rock on what is present day dry land. First, where is this found? Secondly, what conclusions are you drawing from it if this does in fact happen?
Also, there is back pedeling over the live blood cells and marrow found in dinosaur bones to say, "Oh, well, I guess soft tissue and blood cells can exist for millions of years," which is both arrogant and ignorant in an attempt to hold on to a preconceived notion. If you're talking about Dr. Schweitzer's discovery regarding dinosaur bones this is a prime example of both the misrepresentation of scientific discoveries and the adaptability of science to new information, not holding on to preconceived notions. If that were the case, such preservation of soft tissue would be disregarded as impossible rather than being accepted, studied, and used to better understand dinosaurs.
The problem is science has stopped becomming an honest pursuit of knowledge, and now it is, "How can we support our Atheist view?" The irony is, this is what Atheists accuse Creationists of doing.In all my years working in the sciences and taking classes, I've literally never heard anyone say anything like that. On the other hand, Ken Ham has outright stated that if forced to choose between his biblical interpretation and the evidence, he'd choose the Bible.

Animal Mother
09-02-2012, 18:47
I have offered irrefutable evidence.

It has been simply ignored at least by others.

I have come to the conclusion that most atheists have an agenda of denying the existence of God evidence or not.

If you will take an honest look at some evidence I will present it in another thread.
I look forward to this evidence.

High-Gear
09-03-2012, 07:35
I have offered irrefutable evidence.

It has been simply ignored at least by others.

I have come to the conclusion that most atheists have an agenda of denying the existence of God evidence or not.

If you will take an honest look at some evidence I will present it in another thread.

Please provide your three best arguments.

Bren
09-03-2012, 08:37
Please provide your three best arguments.

I'd settle for a link to where he posted this irrefutable evidence that I missed.

dbcooper
09-04-2012, 14:59
If any of you actually want to understand more about evolution - if only so you can argue against it better than the posters here - Carl Sagan's Cosmos series is available for streaming on Netflix. Try Episode 2: "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue (http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/70224651?strkid=1464313473_0_0&trkid=222336&movieid=70224651)."

You might also try "Evolution" from PBS (http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Evolution/70045521?strkid=196624971_1_0&strackid=678821aa38209e61_1_srl&trkid=222336)

There are plenty more. I even found one from the Intelligent Design nuts and I intend to watch it to see if their is anything in their ranting that I don't already know.


I don't know what happened to Artificial Grape but his thread on evolution had excellent info. I was off line for about 2 months and he disappeared at some point.

Alpine
09-04-2012, 18:24
There used to be an elephant at the Phoenix Zoo that painted pictures. Would she qualify as human in your estimation?

Using your conditions, humans have only been "human" for about 10,000 years. Before that were they indistinguishable from other animals?

I'll see your painting elephant and raise you a bedridden alzheimer's victim.

A quick trip to wal-mart is enough to believe it probably took a lot longer than 10,000 years for humans to develop all their different variations. I wouldn't be surprised if scientists sometimes underestimate the variety and mistake some human fossils for something else.

Alpine
09-04-2012, 18:59
Yeah, I mean, if we could observe the effects of evolution, you'd think we'd be abe to prove it by taking a plant or animal and changing its characterists through selection. Using artificial selection to show how natural selection would work in a larger context. While to actually change one aniumal to a new species naturally takes millions of years, we could at least see the short term effect and extrapolate from that.


But if that was possible, next thing you know, there'd be people intentionally doing that to get show dogs and race horses and such (heck, you'd probably have nutty Europeans recreating extinct horse types or Americans making wolves out of dogs without breeding with wolves) - that's ridiculous.


Good job googling up your arguments, by the way.

I know, you were hoping for lab guys in white coats, but...oh yeah, they've been confrming evolution in labs since before your grandfather was born.

How about something very important and fundamental - how did single-celled creatures become multicellular?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/multicellular-life_n_1213355.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html


But, but, how about even more fundamental - the whole idea of life arising from non-life is based on the thoery that, in the environmental conditions that existed before life, amino acids, the basic building blocks of proteins, could form spontaneously. You'd think somebody would just whip up proof of that in a lab . . . in Chicago . . . 80+ years ago . . .(and repeat it many times since). Somewhere in there it says the only surprise was how easy it was.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html

Here's a hint: Even creationists accept microevolution - otherwise they'd be at war with farmers, in addition to scientists and educated people - evolution is going on all around you and both natural and artificial selection are observable. Creationists just claim there is some magic wall, when you can intentionally turn a wolf into a basset hound in no time, but in a million or 5 million years it can't change enough to be classified as a new species. As I udnerstand the creationist piosition, it's - we reject all of evolution...except the part that can be readily observed in a short time, right in front of us.:rofl:

No googles required. I am assuming some of the questions asked here are legitimate and I am giving it thought before replying. I knew I wasn't going to change anyone's mind here and it takes time to think out logical responses, so I may go back to the gun boards after this.

Anyway, you are conflating microevolution with the theory that nonhumans somehow produced humans. Chihuahua or doberman, they're still dogs, but dogs don't give birth to cats.

Some then took refuge in the notion that the whole concept of "human" is too slippery. Science is hard enough for me without playing laboratory lawyer.

But we have at least one thing in common: I share your apparent skepticism that scientists can create life in a laboratory - because I find the whole idea ludicrous. When I see it I will believe it and reconsider my world view accordingly.

My main point is that an atheistic theory of the origin of the universe, life and the human race requires at least as much faith as the Jewish/Christian theory. Maybe that is something else we have in common.

Alpine
09-04-2012, 19:05
You are totally clueless about what the actual argument is. Here's a hint: If you want to do a remake of the Wizard of Oz, you need more characters than an army of strawmen. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Catholic church acknowledges evolution. Did you know that the Catholic Church still believes in God? It's true!!!! You can google that!

Evolutionary theory states absolutely nothing about God. For all evolutionists know, God set up the physical laws of the universe such that evolution could occur and eventually produce humanity.

Randy

This is partly correct. The catholic church teaches that God MAY HAVE used the process of evolution to create man. Or not. The guys running the show now are smart enough to know the bible is not a science textbook. I think the whole Galileo thing was a lesson learned.

High-Gear
09-04-2012, 22:02
Alpine,
Macroevolution IS Microevolution, just over a larger period of time!

Animal Mother
09-04-2012, 23:03
I'll see your painting elephant and raise you a bedridden alzheimer's victim. Sorry, you've lost me.
A quick trip to wal-mart is enough to believe it probably took a lot longer than 10,000 years for humans to develop all their different variations. I wouldn't be surprised if scientists sometimes underestimate the variety and mistake some human fossils for something else. For the humans have always been around hypothesis to be true, the scientists would have to be making that mistake for all remains more than about 100,000 years old.

Bren
09-05-2012, 05:09
No googles required. I am assuming some of the questions asked here are legitimate and I am giving it thought before replying. I knew I wasn't going to change anyone's mind here and it takes time to think out logical responses, so I may go back to the gun boards after this.

Anyway, you are conflating microevolution with the theory that nonhumans somehow produced humans. Chihuahua or doberman, they're still dogs, but dogs don't give birth to cats.

Some then took refuge in the notion that the whole concept of "human" is too slippery. Science is hard enough for me without playing laboratory lawyer.

But we have at least one thing in common: I share your apparent skepticism that scientists can create life in a laboratory - because I find the whole idea ludicrous. When I see it I will believe it and reconsider my world view accordingly.

My main point is that an atheistic theory of the origin of the universe, life and the human race requires at least as much faith as the Jewish/Christian theory. Maybe that is something else we have in common.

Reading comprehension seems to be giving you some trouble, since you don't seem to have understood anything I said or linked.

ksg0245
09-05-2012, 18:01
No googles required. I am assuming some of the questions asked here are legitimate and I am giving it thought before replying. I knew I wasn't going to change anyone's mind here and it takes time to think out logical responses, so I may go back to the gun boards after this.

Anyway, you are conflating microevolution with the theory that nonhumans somehow produced humans.

What is the theory of microevolution?

What process or mechanism prevents small changes from accumulating into large changes?

Chihuahua or doberman, they're still dogs, but dogs don't give birth to cats.

The ToE doesn't saying anything like "dogs give birth to cats."

Speciation has been repeatedly observed.

Some then took refuge in the notion that the whole concept of "human" is too slippery. Science is hard enough for me without playing laboratory lawyer.

But we have at least one thing in common: I share your apparent skepticism that scientists can create life in a laboratory - because I find the whole idea ludicrous. When I see it I will believe it and reconsider my world view accordingly.

My main point is that an atheistic theory of the origin of the universe, life and the human race requires at least as much faith as the Jewish/Christian theory. Maybe that is something else we have in common.

There is no "atheistic theory of the origin of the universe." There is a scientific theory that only references the observable.

Gunhaver
09-05-2012, 18:27
What is the theory of microevolution?

What process or mechanism prevents small changes from accumulating into large changes?



Don't bother with that one. The cowards don't have an answer so they'll avoid that question every time. What really makes me :rofl: and :upeyes: is the fact that the Noah's ark story that so many here believe requires some serious microevolution to turn a few species of animals that you can fit on a boat into so many different species that we haven't even come close to discovering let alone counting them all. They'll tell you in one breath that Noah didn't need to include every single species because birds all came from a few kinds of birds and lizards all came from a few kinds of lizards and so on and then in the next breath claim that speciation doesn't happen.

Seems they need microevolution to back up that story, want it to stop exactly where they need it to stop, but can't ever put their finger on where that is or what biological mechanism is responsible for putting the brakes on the process when the evolving is about to go too far for them to be comfortable with.

Alpine
09-11-2012, 20:29
Sorry, you've lost me.
For the humans have always been around hypothesis to be true, the scientists would have to be making that mistake for all remains more than about 100,000 years old.

I was trying to say that the ability to paint does not define one as human, just as the lack of ability to paint doesn't define one as non-human.

Alpine
09-11-2012, 20:48
Reading comprehension seems to be giving you some trouble, since you don't seem to have understood anything I said or linked.

Bad reading comprehension? At least you didn't call me a cowardly moron who lives in a trailer.

Forgive me if I don't click on links to huffingtonpost or pbs.
The newscientist article was very interesting. As I understood it, the researcher didn't claim to have evolved a new life form, but only a specimen that didn't exhibit characteristics normally associated with other specimens. This may be just a matter of human expectations being too limited. Perhaps, as I said before about the fossil record, people are underestimating the physical variability of the human species?

Syclone538
09-11-2012, 21:18
It would be interesting to see how far we could push something with a very short life span, in like 10 or 20 years.

Animal Mother
09-11-2012, 21:18
Darwin would be a better authority on that than me.

I will go with:
Creativity (music, technology, art).

I was trying to say that the ability to paint does not define one as human, just as the lack of ability to paint doesn't define one as non-human.'

Don't your two points contradict one another?

ArtificialGrape
09-11-2012, 21:53
Perhaps, as I said before about the fossil record, people are underestimating the physical variability of the human species?

So these are just some variations within the same species to you?

http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l591/ArtificialGrape/hominids.jpg

Maybe just a matter of some having purdier mouths than others?

-ArtificialGrape

ArtificialGrape
09-11-2012, 21:57
I don't know what happened to Artificial Grape but his thread on evolution had excellent info. I was off line for about 2 months and he disappeared at some point.

Here it is... ArtificialGrape's Evolution Primer (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1355802)

Alpine
09-11-2012, 22:03
'

Don't your two points contradict one another?

No, just suggesting there is room for a lot of variation between different members of the same species.

Animal Mother
09-11-2012, 22:36
No, just suggesting there is room for a lot of variation between different members of the same species.Then how do we determine what examples belong to a given species?

Originalsin
09-13-2012, 11:23
Technically, the title should say "creationists" but I've never heard an anti-evolution debate from any who aren't christians. No doubt, muslims have the same issues, but you aren't allowed to discuss it in their countries and they don't have much influence in mine.

I work with a Muslim guy who has explained to me - at great length - that his religion has no problem with the idea of evolution.

Originalsin
09-13-2012, 11:34
We understand more about evolution than we do about gravity. I bet you don't doubt gravity do you? Unless you would like to convert to my church and learn all about Intelligent Falling, and help me get it taught in school.

I like that! :)

Bren
09-13-2012, 16:01
This thread is still going on?

Then how do we determine what examples belong to a given species?

And from that, the key to this whole argument:

Christians agree that you can have change of characteristics within a species. Probably a good idea to admit that, since every farmer and dog breeder, etc., proves it every day.

Obviously, to me, if I can change dogs into dogs that are very different, in just a few years, by controlling which ones reproduce, then multiplying that by MILLIONS leads to whole new species.

Christians say, "but there is a magical dividing line that keeps thiem from becoming a new species."

Really? A species is just an arbitrary dividing line scientists use to classify living things, based on like characteristics. In fact, they sometimes reclassify things from one species to another, based on new information. It seems stunningly obvious that when those microevolutionary changes accumulate enough differences, an animal would be classified as a new species. Heck, the people who classify thing by species don't even agree on what a species is.

The creationist argument here only works when they make the argument to people who don't comprehend the amount of time involved and imagine that change to a new species, means a horse one day gives birth to a zebra, or an ape has a human baby. I really think that's how they think - it ios at least how they try to misrepresent evolution, to convince others not to believe it (or their lie about it).

Gunhaver
09-13-2012, 17:13
This thread is still going on?



And from that, the key to this whole argument:

Christians agree that you can have change of characteristics within a species. Probably a good idea to admit that, since every farmer and dog breeder, etc., proves it every day.

Obviously, to me, if I can change dogs into dogs that are very different, in just a few years, by controlling which ones reproduce, then multiplying that by MILLIONS leads to whole new species.

Christians say, "but there is a magical dividing line that keeps thiem from becoming a new species."

Really? A species is just an arbitrary dividing line scientists use to classify living things, based on like characteristics. In fact, they sometimes reclassify things from one species to another, based on new information. It seems stunningly obvious that when those microevolutionary changes accumulate enough differences, an animal would be classified as a new species. Heck, the people who classify thing by species don't even agree on what a species is.

The creationist argument here only works when they make the argument to people who don't comprehend the amount of time involved and imagine that change to a new species, means a horse one day gives birth to a zebra, or an ape has a human baby. I really think that's how they think - it ios at least how they try to misrepresent evolution, to convince others not to believe it (or their lie about it).


:popcorn:

Alpine
09-13-2012, 19:57
Obviously, to me, if I can change dogs into dogs that are very different, in just a few years, by controlling which ones reproduce, then multiplying that by MILLIONS leads to whole new species.

Until someone takes a dog and breeds it into a non-dog, it's only a theory. Maybe true, maybe false. You're convinced it's true and I require proof.

We're right back where we started. Feel free to have the last word.

Animal Mother
09-13-2012, 21:54
Until someone takes a dog and breeds it into a non-dog, it's only a theory. How will you identify if and when this happens?
Maybe true, maybe false. You're convinced it's true and I require proof. Take a related case, someone taking a wolf and breeding it into a non-wolf. That's been done, hasn't it?
We're right back where we started. Feel free to have the last word.What would constitute, in your mind, sufficient proof of speciation?

Geko45
09-13-2012, 22:06
What would constitute, in your mind, sufficient proof of speciation?

Whatever is just past the ability of science to explain, of course. And when science finally arrives at the point that it can be explained then the standard of proof will recede again just far enough to be out of reach.

Glock36shooter
09-14-2012, 00:05
Until someone takes a dog and breeds it into a non-dog, it's only a theory. Maybe true, maybe false. You're convinced it's true and I require proof.

We're right back where we started. Feel free to have the last word.

This has to be the most fantastically uninformed statement about evolution I've ever read. Are you one of those people that thinks evolution states that a monkey gave birth to a human? If so you really just need to stop even talking about it until you've done some reading. You're just embarrassing yourself. Seriously... I'm embarrassed for you.

ArtificialGrape
09-14-2012, 08:17
Until someone takes a dog and breeds it into a non-dog, it's only a theory. Maybe true, maybe false. You're convinced it's true and I require proof.

We're right back where we started. Feel free to have the last word.
It would behoove you to actually learn something about the theory before speaking about it so that you might come across intelligently.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with some of your knowledge of the evidence for evolution that can be found in fossils, DNA, embryology, biogeography..., and your issues with the evidence.

Much of biology only makes sense within the framework of evolution: vestigial traits, atavisms, worldwide patterns of species distribution, countless examples of "unintelligent design"...

If evolution did not include speciation, then all we would have would be a single, highly evolved species rather than several million species that are living today (plus millions that have gone extinct).

Also, your use of "only a theory" also boasts that you don't know how the word is used among scientists. Here's a video that might help.
***** 2. Evolution vs. Creationism:Is Evolution Just a Theory? ***** - YouTube

-ArtificialGrape

Glock36shooter
09-14-2012, 09:08
It would behoove you to actually learn something about the theory before speaking about it so that you might come across intelligently.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with some of your knowledge of the evidence for evolution that can be found in fossils, DNA, embryology, biogeography..., and your issues with the evidence.

Much of biology only makes sense within the framework of evolution: vestigial traits, atavisms, worldwide patterns of species distribution, countless examples of "unintelligent design"...

If evolution did not include speciation, then all we would have would be a single, highly evolved species rather than several million species that are living today (plus millions that have gone extinct).

Also, your use of "only a theory" also boasts that you don't know how the word is used among scientists. Here's a video that might help.
***** 2. Evolution vs. Creationism:Is Evolution Just a Theory? ***** - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ctl9nzEqs&feature=player_embedded)

-ArtificialGrape

It won't help, he won't even bother to look at it. I know a guy like that. He calls me an "Educated Idiot" because I don't believe in Jesus. He doesn't understand how stupid he sounds when he talks.