Glad to hear it;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Printable View
Glad to hear it;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
You have no idea what I'm open to - you assume. As a theory, evolution makes a certain amount of sense. However - just like the evolutionists/atheists who claim they need more "proof" to believe in God - I need some of the "gaps" in evolution filled before the theory seems reasonable to me. Either way - the Christian is less concerned with "fitting in" to the world's logic than he is in obeying God - entrance into heaven isn't granted because you were "right" all the time, or because you "knew" everything - it's based on your faith and your obedience.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
I think that there was no Adam and Eve, that it is just a fable that someone came up with to convince people to not defy the Almighty
That's the core of the battle between evolution and creation. Man doesn't want to acknowledge God and therefore people believe in evolution yet turn a blind eye to its fallacies. I can understand that to some, God seems like a needless complication to life but because He has saved me I know otherwise.
This is, I must say, a fairly useless comment. First of all, acceptance of the theory evolution does not entail atheism. Ken Miller, for example, is both a brilliant evolutionary biologist and a Roman Catholic. Second, atheism does not require acceptance of the theory of evolution (take a look at David Hume, for one, who died thirty years before Darwin was born). Third atheists are not people who don't "want to acknowledge God" or people to whom "God seems like a needless complication to life", they are people who don't believe in God.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave
Seriously, we've got enough ad hominem arguments on this thread as it is.
I apologize for annoying you but I don't budge from what I say. Yes, you can believe that all the Bible is correct except Genesis and still be a Christian. But, if one doesn't believe the first book of the Bible is legit, what makes the other books true? The next logical step would be to say that the Resurrection is impossible. Then the entire purpose of God and Christianity would fall apart because Jesus' Resurrection is the core of my faith.
And furthermore, a nice sort of witness I'd be if I believed in both the Bible and in something contradictory to it.
I'm afraid I didn't clarify. I didn't mean that all atheists are evolutionists; rather, I've read accounts of atheists who disbelieve evolution because of a lack of proof but didn't believe in creation either.
I'm not qualified to talk about what atheists believe because I don't know any personally. I never even talked about atheists in my post! As you say, they don't believe in God because they refuse to acknowledge He exists. Does that make my stand a little more sharply defined?
Atheism doesn't require evolution, but evolution is the most powerful engine of atheism invented. It allows one to be an intellectual atheist, whereas the previous scientists were attempting to understand God.
One could interpret it as a metaphor. Or an alegory.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
This would be an example of the slippery slope logical fallicy. Catholics still believed in the Resurrection last time I checked.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Well perhaps I was reading into it a bit too deeply, but that's who I thought you were refering to when you said that man refuses to acknowledge God.Quote:
Originally Posted by ibid
No, that's not what I said. Refusal to acknowledge that God exists would require a) that God exists and b) a fairly large body of evidence of this fact that one might ignore. a is in question, and b simply isn't there. Refusal to acknowledge God's existence requires theism.Quote:
Originally Posted by ibid
Because there were no intellectual atheists before Darwin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Nope. They were attempting to understand nature. Previous philosophers were trying to understand God (or gods, depending on which philosphers), but natural philosophy (alias science) has never had much to do with God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
[QUOTE=Dyrwen;53370]Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It only has to do with how life evolved over time to become what it is today. [QUOTE]
Well just to let you know evolution has everyhting to do with life because if it didn't then what are we doing here. really if you want my opinion i think you don't know what you believe in and that you are completely confused on the subject of life its self.
This would be an example of the slippery slope logical fallicy. Catholics still believed in the Resurrection last time I checked.
well actually cuppajoe_9 you are wrong because the whole point of the resurection is the fact that he broke the gap from humans to god. the whole popint of christ dying on the cross was so that we didn't have to go through a prest to talk to him and last time i checked the cathlics believed that they are not worthy enouph to talk to god himself so they pray to mary and all of the saints and they rely on them talking their prayers to god and taht is not what the resurection is about.
So they might believe that it happened but they don't actually belive in it the porpose of it.
No. The theory of evolution describes how animals speciate and adapt to their environment. The hypotheses of abiogenesis describe how life may have originated on earth. The two concepts are quite seperate.Quote:
Originally Posted by the fett man
What? I was raised Catholic, friend. They pray to God (and Jesus, and the saints). They believe in the literal truth of the resurrection of Jesus' body from the grave.Quote:
Originally Posted by the fett man
What I am talking about it whether or not they believe it happened. The differences between Catholic and Protestant interpretations of the Resurrection are not strictly relevant to my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by the fett man
Yep - or one could take it litarally. We choose the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Not necessarily. If you remove a foundational piece of a highly integrated work, it is possible to start an avalanche of sorts. andave_ya is speaking of the unity of the Bible. The Bible presents a unified picture - once you start pulling pieces out and discarding them or reinterpreting them to where they alter the picture of Who God Is, then all other miracles in the Bible are subject to such revision. It's hard for me to explain this in a clear way, because it involves the arc of the entire Bible - but it all links together.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
This is because of the presuppositional natures of our two positions: yours is that God doesn't exist; ours is that He does; therefore, it is perfectly accurate to use the language andave_ya uses - because the Bible makes it clear that all humans have an internal "knowledge" or at least an awareness (of sorts) of God. From the Christian perspective, there is no framework that exists outside Him. To say He doesn't exist is to refuse to acknowledge what the Bible claims you know - even if only at a subconscious level.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
At least after the Enlightenment. Before then they had a bit closer relationship. But the Enlightenment was when science decided that it no longer needed the knowledge gained through spirituality - which is why it will always lack part of the picture when it claims to have assessed exactly what "reality" is.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
You're quite welcome to. That isn't the issue, however. The point is that the theory of evolution does not necessarily demand that Genesis be untrue, just allegorical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I suppose it's possible, but andave suggests that it is necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
This is not, I must say, very impressive reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
1. Everybody knows, even if subconciously, that God exists.
2. We know this, because it says so in the Bible.
3. We know the Bible is reliable because it was inspired by God.
4. We know that God exists because everybody, even if subconciously, knows that God exists.
And we have now completed a playful circle. Anthropology, however, has a bone to pick with P1. Children raised in atheist families do not readily understand the concept of a God. A study of the wretchedly poor underclasses of Victorian England found that many children did not know who God is or what he does.
Show me the scientist who claims to "have assessed exactly what 'reality' is".Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
The same thing would hold then. If Genesis is a metaphor or an allegory, why wouldn't Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John be metaphors or allegories?Quote:
One could interpret it as a metaphor. Or an alegory.
Because they have (allegedly) more historical support than Genesis, perhaps? It's still a slipperly slope fallicy. Catholics hold the concepts of an allegorical Genesis and a literal Luke in their heads quite comfortably.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Evolution is a hypothosis based on the theory of spontaneous generation,
which is contrary to a proven law of science. The law of biogenesis meaning
that living things can only come from other living things. Another is the
cell principle, which states that all living things are divided into cells and that
cells come only from preexisting cells. These are tried and proven laws and
principles accepted in the scientific world. Not anyones oppinion.So if you
believe the Bible or not isn't important, however, the fact that evolution
couldn't of even occured is.
No, evolution is a theory and it does not in any way depend on abiogenesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruhbr_ducky
They are also arguments from ignorance:Quote:
Originally Posted by rubhr_ducky
1. It is not known how life can originate from non-life.
2. Therefore, life cannot originate from non-life.
1. All known examles of life are divided into cells.
2. Therefore, life cannot exist unless divided into cells.
Kind of an 'all rats have tails' problem.
But, again, you are talking about abiogenesis. Not evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubhr_ducky
Evolution is based on abiogensis, and for it to be a theory it would have to stand the test of time and would be verified by experiment after experiment.
Evolution has never once been verified. It is therfore a hypothesis.
Not it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruhbr_ducky
That is correct. Guess what?Quote:
Originally Posted by ruhbr_ducky
did you really expect me to read all that?
so what would you say evolution is based on?
Tell you what, read any of it.
Readily observable evidence of common descent, for a start.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruhbr_ducky
and what would you say is readily observable?
The genomes of E. coli, Pan paniscus and Homo spaiens sapiens have been fully sequenced and are available for your comparison, if you have the time.
your Homo erectus is also a bad argument most have been proven to be frauds and others only awaiting and yet still others that have been proven to be frauds and people still cling to them as proof.
I didn't even mention Homo erectus?
I am not sure what you mean by the genomes of E. coli, so far I've never heard that argument?
what I ment by that is that all of the so called remains have been proven to be either 100% animal or 100% human.
E. coli was one of the first species to have its genome decoded (the entire pattern of proteins in its DNA is known, in other words). The same has been done to humans and to bonobos, as well as thousands of other species. Not only do these three species use the same 22 amino acids out of a possible 390 naturally occuring ones, but signifigant strands of DNA are identical in all three species. If you accept the principle that common gentic material implies ancestry, this is a hard thing to get over if you would like to disprove the theory of evolution.
That still dosn't prove evolution.You are missing the basic fact that life can not reproduce except by life. Nothing can come from nothing. Simularities do not make proff.And if you believe this line of reasoning why are there no transitional forms?
And you are still talking about abiogenesis and not evolution. You can believe that God, chemical soup, aliens or whatever you like resulted in the first life form on earth, but after that, I can show you common descent for every organism.
Hey, look! Hundreds of transitional forms!Quote:
Originally Posted by ruhbr_ducky
Evolution had to begin somewhere, I have seen no other explination as to how it began other that abiogenesis.So in my book it is abiogenesis. If you feel differently please explain how it began, I'd be happy to understant.
Also I'am not interested in your websites I want to here the argument from you.
I also have no interest in aliens or chemical soup. Only the truth.
just a question how many classes have you taken on this subject?
another question do you believe the punctuated equilibrium?
It surprises me how heated these debates become (after I post this it will be the 1713th reply in this topic). If we could truly accept the fact that some people believe in God and Creation while others believe in "Evolution" why would we have to incessantly debate on the matter? I've seen some eloquently written posts in this thread, some of which have progressively strong points to support their opinions, but it appears (to me at least) outright ridiculous to go on back and forth, back and forth on which view appears more plausible. I personally believe in both creation and evolution... I believe Providence created the creatures which encompassed the earth and evolution biologically tweaked God's creatures to adapt with capricious environmental changes (Giraffe neck growth over centuries and land turtles to armadillos for an example..)
I don't know how it began. Neither does anybody. It doesn't matter, because it happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruhbr_ducky
You're getting the argument from me. The websites contain the evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by ibid
Whether I've never taken a class or whether I'm Emiritus Professor of Biology at Oxford University has no relevance to my argument. If you're interested, however, I finished high school biology and read a few books out of personal interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by ibid
It seems to be the way things work, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ibid
As for myself, I stay here because it forces me to stay educated about biological evolution, not because I really think I'm going to convince anybody.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolescent
Well I'll start with your punctuated equilibrium hypothesis.According to this idea, new kinds of oraganisms arise as a result of drastic environmental changes, which bring about rapid genetic changes in small groups of animals and plants.Some even go as far as to state that drastic genetic restructurings called macromutations that suddenly change one kind of creature into another.(1 What proof do you have that there was a sudden drastic enviromental change that would cause macromutation?(2 mutations are not an improvement in an organisms it is always harmful and distructive.
This is nothing but a way to side step the fact that there are no true transitional forms.
However,it matters greatly how it began. This is the whole question of the matter. You stated that you do not know, neither does evolution. It only provides more questions,not awnsers.I want to give ya some more quotes.
This is by Thomas Henery Huxley, an accredited scientist," If the hypothesis of evolution be true,living matter must have originated from non-living matter
for,by that hypothesis, the conditions on the globe were at one time such that living matter could not have existed, life being entirely incompatible with the gaseous state."
Lorande Woodruff (Biology, Yale University) states it thus:" We thus reach the general conclusion that, so far as observation and experimentation are concerned, no form of life exists today except from pre-existing life."
I have two other problems for ya.(1 What about the plant life? There are no signs of evolutionary, or otherwise.C.A. Arnold said this," As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present."
Also what about you "simularity equals connection" hypothesis? Take for instance Eohippus or "dawn horse," the linage runs thus from "dawn horse" to "modern horse," goes like this, Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs, but its supposed descendant Orohippus had only 15 pairs;a later stage in the "tree,"
Pliohippus, had 19 pairs of ribs, while the modern horse has 18 pairs of ribs. Such jumping back and forth, with ribs disappearing and reappearing like magic, is a strong indication that the "horse series" is actually a collection of unrelated mammals that share a smiliar overall body plan.
Somewhat like your human,ape, E. coli.
Observation. We can see observe animals that have experienced sudden, drastic, environmental changes and the ensuing speciation. For example, we can compare those organisms on volcanic islands with those on continental islands. The organisms on volcanic islands, who would've had to wind up there by accident, can be shown to have diverged greatly from their ancestors because of the difference between the continental environment and the sea-locked environment. Species on continental islands, however, are relatively close in physiology and genetics to their ancestors, because a continental island's environment doesn't change much when it seperates from the mainland. Check out the differences in the animal populations between, say, Vancouver Island and Hawaii.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruhbr
Demonstrably false. We've observed organisms speciating due to beneficial mutations, as in the HIV, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruhbr
Fortunately, it doesn't need to. The theory of evolution by natural selection describes how all life on earth originally speicated from a common ancestor. Where that ancestor came from is entirely secondary.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruhbr
An illustration: most evolutionary biologists assume that abiogenesis occured because the conditions on early earth were such that self-replicating organic molecules were formed which, over the course of millions of years, evolved into the first cells. Suppose, however, the hypothesis suggested by the film Mission to Mars was shown to be correct, and the first organisms on earth were actually put there my martian scientists. Modern biologists would certainly be surprised, but would they have to throw out their taxonomy tree? No, of course not, because the fact that organisms evolve and speciate through the process of natural selection does not depend on the current assumtion of abiogenesis from self-replicating organic molecules.
Another illustration: the theory of gravity is, to put it one way, generally accepted among physicists. How gravity actually works, however, is deeply mysterious. The best current hypothesis, in my limited understanding, is Loop Quantum Gravity which, if you try to understand it, will give you a raging headache. There are numerous competing hypotheses for the mechanics of gravity, however, and nothing is difinitely settled as to how gravitation actually takes place. This does not, however, change the fact that whenever you drop an object it travels at a certain number of meters per second per second towards the centre of the earth until somehow impeded.
Incompleteness is not proof of defect for the theory of gravity, and it is not proof of defect for the theory of evolution.
Well he may be an accredited scientist, but I hope he's not a biologist, because evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis, and it does not depend on abiogenesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruhbr
Translation: we don't know. Yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruhbr
Again, I don't know who C.A. Arnold is, but I hope he's not a biologist, because that is simply false. We've traced the taxonomy of the plant kingdom the same way we've traced the taxonomy of the animal kingdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruhbr
Evolution = more ribs, now? The question is not one of 'similarity', we can trace inhereted genetic markers as a way of confirming physiolgical similarity, and it almost always works. In addition, most fossilized transitional forms, by necesity of probability, are not actual ancestors, but rather closely related evolutionary 'side-branches' that went extinct.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruhbr