Evolution, not a fact??????

Kinda says it all really, doesn't it Jan? There you are making such demands, (that you would merely laugh at if they were given in return), but then do not even have the decency to read the guy's posts - which might just give you that which you seek. Of course you'll never know because, as you clearly state, you cannot be bothered. This isn't a case of you wanting to know reality, but whether you can or cannot be bothered learning - and it seems apparent that you can't. It's shocking.. someone who can't be fucked taking the time to learn, but can argue against reality, (while supporting kiddy fiction), without taking the time to learn anything about it.

You're a disgrace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jan:

Thank you Jan. You've merely demonstrated that when a poster does try to spoon-feed you evidence, you merely turn your head the other way, and pop up in another thread squeaking "No evidence, not fact, just religion, la la la!"

I'm not going to dignify the rest of your drivel with a response, since it is just the same arguments I have already refuted. You consistently ignore the fact that your arguments have been debunked, and repeat them ad nauseum.

Still think that direct observation of an event is necessary for an explaination of it to be scientific? I've explained why that statement is not true to retarded 5 year olds with success, so there is some hope for you, Jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Creation and evolution are not the same thing, and are not mutually exclusive. We were created, and have since evolved. Well no, that's not entirely correct either...

Creation is a process which is not yet finished, but is ongoing, and evolution is process that occurs within it, as a means of adaptation to one's environment. Creation won't be finished until it is eternal.

Think outside the box...the damned box.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lori,

So I'd like to be clear here about what you mean.

I think what you are saying is that the first piece of life that appeared (a pre-bio microbe of some type) was a result of a creation event, but wasn't created in God's image as the bible states, is that correct? And that it evolved into us and all the other forms of diverse life, most of which have since become extinct, is that correct?

However, evolution is still in progress but you state creation is still in progress but uses evolution. So doesn't that really mean that evolution and creation are the same thing? Which of course contradicts with your opening statement.

 

Cris,

Well, who knows what "God's image" looks like exactly? Jesus Christ is the only one, according to His word, who has ever seen His face.

And there is no scientific proof that human beings have evolved from some microbial organism. As a matter of fact, as of recent, there is actually scientific theory that states it would be impossible for that to be true. I'm not a scientist, but it has to do with dna replication. I just watched a television show about it the other day, but I don't memorize such things because it just doesn't really matter to me. I know God personally, so really, what else is there? The details are trivial to me.

What I believe is that the Bible is the true word of God. It does not state in the Bible that Genesis was an initial creation either, meaning the beginning of all time, existence, and creation. It actually suggests that it was a recreation. The end of the Bible (Revelation) is definitely not the end of all time and existence, and creation, so why would Genesis be the beginning? What happens after "the end" in Revelation? A new beginning. Who knows how long this has been going on? I think it's safe to say that none of us do. As far as I can understand, time doesn't exist in the spiritual realm. The realm is eternal...and eternity a very difficult thing for humans to wrap their minds around. It seems to me that in the Bible, God gave us what we need to know, not all there is to know.

It also seems to me that there is evidence in science and in the Bible that there were civilizations upon this earth prior to the written record. For example, I always ask, who was in Nod? The place where Cain went to marry? Who were the giants? No one has given me a good answer except for Holy Spirit Himself.

I see evolution as a natural process according to His law like any other natural process...erosion, photosynthesis, or whatever.

 

At what point do you think the evolutionary chain started that led to us?

 

There is a wealth of evidence, however, that grows by the day. And there is no viable scientific alternative explanation.

Excuse me, I just want to take a photograph of the herd of porcine individuals flying past my window unaided.

That is very clear.

Science is not conducted through the medium of television.

So you could hardly be expected to understand it, or anything else to do with the wealth of evidence that supports evolution, so what gives you the arrogance to deny its full reality?

 

I don't know, and fact is, neither does anyone else. My question is...what difference could it possibly make? Regardless of at what point, the point is that creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. And quite frankly, I find it funny and/or scary that so many people on both sides of this pointless debate can't for one moment think outside of their respective boxes...it's just so absurd to me.

 

Wow, that was a really long-winded and agonizingly drawn-out display of your lack of knowledge. Um, thanks.

Ok, ok, it has something to do with dna replication in a single-cell organism. That evolution occurs through recessive genes in 2 mating organisms, which of course is impossible for a single cell self-replicating organism. That these organisms don't or can't evolve because of this. Something like that anyway. I take it you haven't even taken a glance at any intelligent design theory right? All kinds of atheist scientists can't deny the very objective and rather overwhelming amount of evidence...these are atheist scientists. The fact is that true scientists do not operate under preconceived notions or political or personal agendas, but honestly seek the truth based upon unbiased evidence. Nowadays, and especially in regards to the intelligent design theory, many lay-person atheists are really showing all of us just how biased and "religious" they really are. I always thought that "church people" were bad, but lately these atheist fundies are really showing their true colors in trying to desparately cling to their Darwinistic pacifiers. If you want to know what I'm talking about then google up "intelligent design"...there are plenty of scientists out there providing all kinds of evidence. Let me guess...you're not interested right? Right.

 

Contrived flattery will not lessen my attacks on your self delusion.

Evolution does not occur through recessive genes. Single celled organisms can readily evolve through natural selection applied to the varied forms of mutation that can and do arise in such micro-organisms. Such evolution has been observed many times. Even your ID buddies, for the most part, accept this kind of micro-evolution as being real.

Many scientists are not atheists. Many are practicing Christians, lapsed Catholics, agnostics, Hindus, Bhuddists, etc. What on Earth makes you think scientists are atheist, or that scientists promoting evolution are specifically atheist. Grow up.

Correct. You should try the same approach. Smarten up.

What the Almighty Aardvark is a lay-person atheist? What has such an entity got to do with anything? For sake of argument I'll accept your claim that lay-person atheists are behaving as you say. That has bugger all to do with evolution or science. Strawman argument par excellence. Wise up.

Let me make it really simple for you. I have as much time for an atheist fundie as I do for a young Earth creationist. Evolution and Christianity are wholly compatible, unless you are congenitally thick. You are employing a strawman argument again.

I've probably read more on Intelligent Design you have. More to the point, I have understood it.
Who are these scientists who have put forward this evidence then? Just list a dozen publications by them in peer reviewed science journals. Only one dozen. For each one you provide I could (were I to waste the time) give you one hundred, one thousand, ten thousand pointing the other way. For practical purposes, lets restrict it to twenty. For each peer reviewed IDist paper published in a bona fide science journal that you list, I'll provide twenty that provide a counter argument to the argument raised in said ID paper.
I suspect I shall have a long wait.

 

is evolution a fact? yes
that is the only thing i can say about the subject. check that, proof is not evidence. i am a non scientist (meaning no formal education) and i believe this "proof/evidence" might be lori's "problem". lori don't make the same mistake i did, if it is proof you want then theology has no proof, how we got here from the elements has no proof.

 

The other missing parameter of the poll is that both perspectives can be equally correct, and, actually, I suspect that this is the case.

The 'I'm tired and this has gotta be the short version' goes like this;

Up close and personal in each moment of our 'reality' the appearances are such that time, motion and sequentiality have 'existence'. If we can look at all the 'moments of reality' (MoR), sequentially, temporally, then evolution can be understood and supported within that context.
This is where the evolutionists can dance.

From sufficient 'distance' there is no sequentiality to MoR. Each and every MoR has mutual and simultaneous 'existence'. All omniverse exists at once.

A short quote from Richard Feynman from, "Genius: The Life & Science of Richard Feynman";

The only 'thing' that can even be said to actually 'move' is Consciousness. MoR are what the quantum possibility/information waves (QP/IW) collapse into, ultimately. I equate the sum total of all QP/IW with/as Mind. The only way to posit any evolution from this scenario is by 'consciousness' visiting 'certain' MoR and not others, sequentially. This would again 'simulate' evolution. The 'context of motion' is necessary for 'evolution'.
But viewed as it is 'in toto', a vast array of simultaneously 'existing' MoR, within Mind, one might well ask, "Who's Consciousness? Who's Mind?" There is always a certain probability that Consciousness and Mind might require some sort of 'entity' to 'display' these 'qualities'. Perhaps not.
This is where the godfolk can dance.

So, depending on 'perspective' and 'context', both views can be equally 'correct' and, of course, likewise, equally incorrect.

Perhaps instead of the seven blind men arguing over the appearance of the elephant before their individual senses, they might be better served to communicate their perspectives and a subsequent communal synthesis might provide the most fruitful understanding?

 

OK, I'll answer Dave's question:

Thanks.


But are they chronological ancestors? I don't think so, not all at any rate. I'm no anthropologist/human biologist, but as I recall Neanderthals aren't assumed to be lineal descendants of H. h. sapiens any more anyway. The site could be - horror of horrors! - in error.


Ok. Well considering that this site is supposedly the dummies guide to evolution, it seems to have made a glaring error. If I was a dummy and looked at that picture I might have believed that we came from a chimpanzee. Then I might have declared this to the world and started having pointless debates even though I was ill informed.

The dummy site has been recommended to me countless times in this thread. But in all honestly I looked at it the first time. I got to one(which was near the very beginning) of the sites most celebrated examples of transitional fossils (in their words) and come to the same conclusion as you, hence the reason I asked the question in the first place.

 

After torturing myself through all 8 pages, all I've got to say is, if you're going to argue with the apes at the zoo be prepared to be covered in poo...

 

Its price we have to pay for encouraging their evolution.

 

Again, the TREND, not direct descendance, is the thing that one gleans from the skulls. You asked if they were in chronological order, which, admittedly I presumed you would draw "direct descendance" from. So presumably they would be in 'chronological' order (assuming that the dating was done correctly) but they are not necessarily in linear order of descendance.

I assume that clears things up.

Geoff

 

Recessive genes in two mating organisms, which are actually self-replicating organisms? You've lost me there, anyway. Can we have that again, please?

However, self-replicating organisms can indeed evolve, via mutation. Change in the frequency of any given mutation within a single-cell lineage corresponds to evolution.

Geoff

 

I should also mention that major changes in morphology, suggestive of speciation, have been observed in such mutant-extant lines.

Geoff

 

Either way you look at it - In my opinion:

We have two movements:

Creationist - Here is what happend, now how do we make this fact?
Evolutionist - Here is the facts, so this is what happend.

It could of been said better - But I beleive that evolution is a science; it just isn't completely proven yet.

 

We live in the same world as you. We just don't interpret it the same.

I like how you talk about what you think you know about me...

It assures me I wasn't wrong for not listening to you in the first place. Since you don't know what you're talking about.