The theory of evolution

[mickleb]

Rather what evidences do the creationist/intelligent design scientists, and other theist scientists use to draw conclusions? For the most part the same ones that the evolutionist and non theist scientists use.

 

For the most part...? Where does the evidence differ, then?

 

 

Okay. However, I won't limit your arguments if you don't try to define mine.

 

Okay, if you don't want me to save you some time, I don't have to. That's all I was trying to do there.

 

 

 

Depends on what you define as evidence or how you interpret the evidence before you. If you ignore the design all around you, then you ignore evidence. If this all happened as reactions to nature or by accident, then you ignore the marvels that defy that logic.

 

What is accepted by science as fact cannot be interpreted. That is the point of science. Intelligent design has not been proved, it is therefore not accepted as fact by most people. Scientists do not ignore the marvels that defy logic but seek to understand them. As in the aforementioned example of electricity.

 

But a Supernatural Being would defy our limitations of natural logic and observations using a method that only includes or allows natural explanations. We agree on that. That does not rule such a Being out though.

 

If a God exists, it is part of what we define as nature, but nature we have not yet discovered scientifically. Many phenomena have been outside of our understanding of 'natural logic' but we have learnt about them. If a God exists, why should it not be possible to prove evidence of it? But there are many facts that rule out what the Bible says about how the world was created, so the notion of a creator has been very strongly challenged. There are many possibilities we can't rule out. Perhaps there's a whole world in the centre of the sun that we don't know about yet. We can't prove there isn't - we can't get close enough. But the facts we do have make that seem highly unlikely.

 

 

No, that would not be a fair saying at all. Just as an evolutionary scientist will look at the evidence from the worldview: "How does this explain my theory?" so does a theist scientist look at the evidence fitting it into his more complete worldview that includes the belief of the supernatural behind the origins and design of the nature all around him.

 

Those who believe in evolution do so because the facts support the theory. There are no facts that support the theory of creationism.

 

Someone who believes that God created the world (but may not know how God created) is as open minded (or close minded) as someone who says everything happened naturally with no God.

 

Not if they ignore facts.

 

A non-theist scientist will only accept what can be proved naturally, so he or she is actually more close minded. He or she eliminates the very real possibility of anything else. The theist scientists will include the strong belief that this all began by the hand of an Intelligent Designer. This belief does not explain how or with what processes (hence, a Christian CAN believe in evolution to a degree as used to "create" all around us) God did everything.

 

As I said, if something exists, it is part of nature. Scientists don't eliminate the possibility of those things they have not yet discovered but they will pay less attention to those notions that are unsupported by any factual evidence, as they do not warrant very much attention.

 

One group only includes natural processes and limits their conclusions. The other group includes the real possibility of supernatural intervention and broadens their range of possible conclusions.

 

Nothing is supernatural if it exists. Scientists do not rule out what they don't know, they seek to know what they don't know. But they don't seek it via books like the Bible anymore because most of what has been stated as truth by such books has already been disproved.

 

 

And then this begs the question...WHY should some Being so intelligent as to be able to create the world...and us (by whatever method) bow down to the level of His creation and show His existence when he provided evidences that are being ignored? How dare we show such defiance when we ignore everything around us and pretend that we can explain His existence away?

 

What evidence, again? And I don't get it. Why shouldn't it?

[JamesM]

For the most part...? Where does the evidence differ, then?

 

My fault. I get wordy. It doesn't.

 

Okay, if you don't want me to save you some time, I don't have to. That's all I was trying to do there.

 

I could get into how testimonials do bear weight when it comes to proof, but that would get this way off target.

 

What is accepted by science as fact cannot be interpreted. That is the point of science.

 

We agree.

 

Intelligent design has not been proved, it is therefore not accepted as fact by most people.

 

Evolution as defined as a method to get a single cell to a very complex human, has not been proven either. We can see how it works within a species (kind or whatever the correct word is as I type this without doing a search), but that is a far cry from saying it is how life happened on this earth. I am not saying it did not happen that way, because God could have used that very method. I don't know either. Since we cannot see it in action or test it, we cannot consider it a fact.

 

Since Intelligent Design involves the supernatural (most likely unless we include the panspermia theories or alien visitation theories), then it cannot be tested or proved either 9as stated above).

 

Scientists do not ignore the marvels that defy logic but seek to understand them. As in the aforementioned example of electricity.

 

Agree.

 

If a God exists, it is part of what we define as nature, but nature we have not yet discovered scientifically. Many phenomena have been outside of our understanding of 'natural logic' but we have learnt about them. If a God exists, why should it not be possible to prove evidence of it?

 

No, in fact, God must be outside of nature if He is to be the designer or creator.

 

As to proving His existence, I cannot answer your question.

 

But there are many facts that rule out what the Bible says about how the world was created, so the notion of a creator has been very strongly challenged.

 

As many have stated and maybe even you have mentioned, believing in evolution does NOT eliminate a belief in God. So even if the literal explanation in the Bible is more allegorical, this does not challenge the existence of a God at all. It simply gives a different explanation of how the world began.

 

There are many possibilities we can't rule out. Perhaps there's a whole world in the centre of the sun that we don't know about yet. We can't prove there isn't - we can't get close enough. But the facts we do have make that seem highly unlikely.

 

Over a century ago, someone debating me would have stated the same thing about the very theory you defend. And the idea of me typing on a machine that sends data across the "waves" to you would have been laughed at....yet these are "facts" today.

 

Those who believe in evolution do so because the facts support the theory.

 

No, because they believe that the interpretation of the evidence strongly supports the theory.

 

 

There are no facts that support the theory of creationism.

 

There are as many facts that support evolution.

 

As I said, if something exists, it is part of nature. Scientists don't eliminate the possibility of those things they have not yet discovered but they will pay less attention to those notions that are unsupported by any factual evidence, as they do not warrant very much attention.

 

I think you mean scientific evidence instead of factual evidence, which is redundant. And by ignoring some evidence that seems unsupported by the accepted theory, then much evidence ends up being overlooked that disproves the theory.

 

Nothing is supernatural if it exists.

 

Not a logical statement. Or maybe I misunderstand it.

 

Scientists do not rule out what they don't know, they seek to know what they don't know.

 

True.

 

But they don't seek it via books like the Bible anymore because most of what has been stated as truth by such books has already been disproved.

 

True and not true. They don't seek it out of books. They seek to observe and test it. However as has been stated, this does not mean it has disproved the Bible.

 

 

What evidence, again? And I don't get it. Why shouldn't it?

 

This could get into a lengthy discussion about the many strong arguments that have been presented over the ages for the existence of a God. But that would be farther off topic.

[truthbetold]

DNA the tiny code that's toppling evolution

 

Plenty of "thinking" people analyze "all" the scientific facts not just the ones that mold to an evolutionary perspective.

 

DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" ( Evolution: A Theory in Crisis , 1996, p. 334). Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?

 

Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.

Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).

 

Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution—no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?

 

So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.

 

Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University, explains that genetic information is primarily an instruction manual and gives some examples.

 

He writes: "Consider a step-by-step list of [genetic] instructions. A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, "Take a 1/4-inch nut," a mutation might say, "Take a 3/8-inch nut." Or instead of "Place the round peg in the round hole," we might get "Place the round peg in the square hole" . . . What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step—say, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio" ( Darwin's Black Box , 1996, p. 41).

 

 

Darwinian evolution is still taught in most schools as though it were fact. But it is increasingly being found wanting by a growing number of scientists. "As recently as twenty-five years ago," says former atheist Patrick Glynn, "a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism [regarding a Creator]. That is no longer the case." He adds: "Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution . . ." ( God: The Evidence , 1997, pp. 54-55, 53).

 

So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it?

Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. They don't even have a working hypothesis about it. Lee Strobel writes: "The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made . . . No hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means" (Strobel, p. 282).

 

 

The clincher

 

Besides all the evidence we have covered for the intelligent design of DNA information, there is still one amazing fact remaining—the ideal number of genetic letters in the DNA code for storage and translation.

Moreover, the copying mechanism of DNA, to meet maximum effectiveness, requires the number of letters in each word to be an even number. Of all possible mathematical combinations, the ideal number for storage and transcription has been calculated to be four letters.

This is exactly what has been found in the genes of every living thing on earth—a four-letter digital code. As Werner Gitt states: "The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather that a [lucky] chance" (Gitt, p. 95).

 

There's that fixed truth of math again. Anyone that refuses this truth is also in denial of how the body's organs work and in harmony with one another. Here's a few: There's a mathematical range that the the body's chemistry needs to be in, hypo or hyper potassium, sodium, and magnesium can be critical to several organs especially the heart. The heart must beat so many (math) beats or again, there can be a critical situation. There's a blood count you need to be within, again math. There's a size that cells and organs need to stay in. You need to have a fluid balance within those cells, again math and chemistry. We have a core body temperature that keeps us in homeostasis. Chemical imbalances have big consequences on the body. Neurotransmitters like Serotonin fit with its receptor like a lock and a key. Another words precision, perfection.

 

So it's so much more than picking up a Bible. For you to unlock those mysteries you must have an open and not closed mind, you must be open to the Holy Spirit. If you're not I'm sure it reads like a bunch of fairy tails. But if you are, that's the understanding and beauty of faith.

 

But consider the 73 (or 66 depending on version) books of the Bible actually work in beautiful harmony as well. It's really one story that intertwines. Such intricacy and accuracy is impossible from just man and supports divinely inspired writings. It makes no sense that the OT predicted the coming of Jesus before he came! They all point to it, and it was fulfilled. Roman History supports the NT. But absolutely it takes faith to believe. And I thank God every day he granted me with the grace to believe. And it takes equal belief in evolution because only some of the facts support it. Not all, not by a long shot. So fine believe in it, it's still a belief.

[truthbetold]

I just love all of God's creatures. The wonder of the diversity in the animals and living creatures. From giraffes, zebras, tigers, leopards, lions, all the different bears. How pandas are bears but so different than others. All the sea life, the otters, really ALL of it. The fantastic colors and patterns. And the symmetry of the patterns.

 

Anyway on the topic of giraffes, just how can evolution support that neck anyway?

 

Counterexamples to evolution

 

The extraordinarily long neck of the of the giraffe.The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this.

 

The beautiful colors of the parrot

 

In many birds, red, orange and yellow colouring is conferred by carotenoid pigments (which can be acquired by eating certain plants). But not in parrots. For over a century, biochemists have known that parrots use an “unusual” set of pigments, dubbed psittacofulvins, to produce their rainbow of plumage colours. However, their biochemistry proved elusive until recently. Analyzing the red feathers of 44 species of parrots (across 27 genera, shows that all species use the same set of five psittacofulvins, unique to parrots, to generate their vibrant red colour. How did the enzyme systems required to do such complex chemistry come about? One enzyme would not suffice—and even that is beyond evolution! And what was the selective advantage for each step? Partly-formed enzymes usually won’t work at all.

 

 

Some stunning examples of God's diversity and beauty all around us. And the symmetry of the colors!

 

 

Artistry and color, harmony and symmetry

[SoleMate]

Let's get specific.

 

An anti-evolution poster above mentioned Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMichael Behe, who according to Wikipedia is "an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design (ID) advocate. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known for his argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which asserts that some biochemical structures are too complex to be adequately explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore more probably the result of intelligent design...".

 

Quoting Behe's book as does Wikipedia, "both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp. 71–72

 

How would the shared copy of the broken vitamin C gene be explained by someone who denies evolution? A mainstream scientist would explain it like this: Understanding Genetics

 

Additionally, the guinea pig's inability to make vitamin C should also be explained plausibly. Primates all share the same genetic defect in the vitamin C synthesis mechanism; guinea pigs have the same net problem but a different cause - the defect is located in a different spot.

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS PER SCIENCE:

1. Vitamin C is essential to the metabolism of mammals

2. Most mammals have a gene called GULO that allows them to synthesize vitamin C internally

3. Many primates share the same defect in GULO and consequently cannot synthesize vitamin C, but must consume it in their diets (specifically, Anthropoidea (i.e., Haplorrhini, one of the two major primate suborders, consisting of tarsiers, monkeys, and humans and other apes))

4. Guinea pigs also cannot synthesize vitamin C due to a defect in GULO, but in their case, the defect is completely different from the one shared by Haplorrhini

5. Vitamin C is water-soluble, cannot be stored in the body, and must be eaten regularly by Hapolorrhini

 

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS PER SCIENCE:

6. Haplorrhini share a common ancestor who evolved in an environment where dietary vitamin C was easy to come by, consistently

7. Mutations caused vitamin C making to be lost in one individual primate ancestor

8. The mutations did not confer any survival disadvantage and therefore there was no impediment to them spreading in the population

 

Those are the strongest immediate scientific conclusions that come to my mind. There are many others, of various strength.

 

If those arguing against the reality of evolution could specifically respond to and refute where possible, the points above by number, I'd be grateful. I'm truly curious to understand your reasoning. Those with scientific training are especially invited to reply, and all are welcome!

 

Facts about vitamin C: Vitamin C - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[truthbetold]

In response to questions 1-5-Yes!

 

You realize you are asking a massive explanation? I doubt many on the side of creationists will chime in for that reason, but I don't want to give the idea that what you're asking will stump the creationists. It's just that if I could explain this entire report succinctly on every point, I'd have a much different job!

 

The human GULO pseudogene

 

In summary:

 

One of the key arguments used by some proponents of evolutionary dogma is that the human and chimpanzee GULO pseudogenes are examples of inherited shared genetic mistakes. However, as demonstrated in this report, overall evidence for common ancestry across the entire human GULO locus with chimps and other apes is completely negated by the following discoveries:

 

One of the key arguments used by some proponents of evolutionary dogma is that the human and chimpanzee GULO pseudogenes are examples of inherited shared genetic mistakes. However, as demonstrated in this report, overall evidence for common ancestry across the entire human GULO locus with chimps and other apes is completely negated by the following discoveries:

 

1. Compared to chimpanzee and gorilla, the 28,800 base GULO region in humans is only 84% and 87% identical to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively.
   
2. The 13,000 bases upstream of the human GULO region corresponding to the putative area of loss for at least two major exons, is only 68% and 73% identical to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively.
   
3. The individual six exon regions which are generally very similar among humans and various apes, each independently exhibit completely different and discordant phylogenetic patterns of similarity for all but one exon. A general lack of human SNPs in these exons indicates that incomplete lineage sorting based on alleged ancestral polymorphisms is not a likely explanation.
   
4. The transposable element (TE) content for each region of putative exon loss is taxonomically restricted and evolutionarily discordant between humans and each ape taxon. Unequal recombination associated with transposable element repeats can lead to disruptive deletion events in the genome and likely did in these regions.
   

In conclusion:

 

Based on the current state of genomic information presented in this report, the bulk of evidence indicates that the human GULO gene is pseudogenized via deletions occurring as a result of unequal recombination associated with transposable element repeats. These exon deletion events are taxonomically restricted in humans and in each of the different ape species tested. And in combination with an extreme lack of sequence similarity over the entire GULO locus, utterly negate the idea of macroevolutionary common ancestry.

 

As I said, you're asking a lot! You realize that scurvy is a disease from lack of Vit C. More rare today but it killed 2 million sailors. Why does God allow this? Christians know that God allows things for the greater glory. We aren't going to understand them all, but we have faith. Christians weren't promised it to be easy. So perhaps this defect happened at the fall of man in the garden or after the flood. Why are we similar to apes? Besides having commonalities to a common designer, perhaps since he's omniscient and has omnipresence, he knew man's free will would have many chasing the evolution bunny trail to draw away from him, as it seems many are doing exactly that, as predicted.

 

What I've noticed in anything I've dug up about evolution is, evolution is already assuming we evolved from apes, obvious from how they make the facts fit, from only examining certain portions of the DNA etc...which then becomes the logical fallacy of confirming the consequent, if P then Q, Q therefore P and it plays out like this:

 

If humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, then there will be evidence of (genetic mutation, fused chromosome 2, whatever new finding)

There is evidence of (chromosome fusion or whatever)

Therefore, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

 

Whatever new finding in evolution has always gone back to the assumption that we have common ancestry. And they use what they can and throw out the rest of what doesn't fit.

 

Take for example this:

 

several studies have been performed where targeted regions of the genomes were compared and overall similarity estimates as low as 86 percent were obtained. Once again, keep in mind that these regions were hand-picked because they already showed similarity at some level. The fact remains that there are large blocks of sequence anomalies between chimp and human that are not directly comparable and would actually give a similarity of 0 percent in some regions. In addition, the loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps and vice versa. This is difficult to explain in evolutionary terms since the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?

 

Again the creationist is going to surmise that the similarities are from the common designer evolution denies a God so there will never be agreement.

 

It seems evolutionists want to have everything explained even if that means making rash decisions. For example it was thought there were many vestigial organs in the body that served no purpose again in supporting common ancestry. Well it's been proven every organ serves a purpose. (though some you can certainly survive without)

 

Here's another recent finding. There's a pseudogene that was recently thought to do nothing. Scientists now know that the gene is used for the implantation process of pregnancy. That's the only time it's "turned on", so how would they necessarily be able to observe that unless studying the exact right thing at the right time?

 

You want a really complicated process outlined? Because I do a lot of research (thought not nearly on the level that you are asking for!) for my job, one of my specialties was oncology. And this is why I have a great appreciation for the human body and it's design.

 

PTEN is a gene that suppresses tumors. When the gene is impaired it results in different cancers. They found that there's a corresponding pseudogene PTENP1 but if that gene is impaired cancer still results. So that means PTENP1 must be functional.

 

Researchers discovered that expression of PTEN can be down regulated by small RNA molecules (miRNA). They bind to messenger RNA produced from PTEN. The miRNA causes the breakdown of RNA, and prevents the PTEN protein from carrying out its cellular role or "job". If this continues, the miRNA cause the breakdown of most of the PTEN RNA thus suppressing the activity of PTEN gene and leading to the onset of cancer.

 

However, the similarity between PTENP1 and PTEN allow the PTENP1 to also bind miRNA molecules. Meaning PTENP1’s RNA breaks down instead of PTEN’s. In other words, the gene product of the PTENP1 pseudogene operates as a decoy, which allows for the appropriate levels of PTEN to be produced, thus doing it's job to suppress tumors.

 

Such decoy mechanisms appear to be widespread among genes. The researchers are also finding other such pairs of gene/pseudogene pairs, including the KRAS gene and KRAS1. If you understand breast cancer, I'm sure you understand what a great finding this is for research.

 

Hopefully you understand then where I'm coming from. I detailed the above not to subterfuge or throw a red herring into the mix. I did it to show the utter complexity of the functions of our bodies. (in layman's terms)

 

Maybe my point was missed in describing the intricacy and reliance of the organs to one another, but quite simply and ultimately for me, it is that fact. The human body has several interdependent organs and systems.

 

What that means is that not one of the interdependent organs or systems can exist by itself. Evolutionists want to believe that this does not matter. But the reality of this means that almost every system and organ had to evolve at precisely the same time for everything to work. Which means only instant creation works because all would be ready to work at the same time. Evolution cannot achieve this on any level.

 

Evolution does not have perfect timing because that takes math which requires intelligence. So always referring to us and other animals having a common ancestor is why to me it's not based on "all" the facts and therefore is an assumption based on some of the facts. It doesn't fit for chemistry, math and much of biology.

 

I hope this enlightened you to my position at least. And I totally respect yours as you asked an excellent question that for me anyway, will not be answered fully until the end of time as to the hows and whys. Christians sometimes do have a million of those, but we have faith, I guess therein lies the difference.

[Fugu]

Reasonable posts, TBT. I don't think it's going to change my cynicism toward religion a bit, but it at least makes an attempt to start some place reasonable.

 

For the record, I actually do believe that a "God" exists and that It created the Universe as we know it. As I've told my mostly atheist wife, I believe that this God - and its power - are probably beyond the human mind's capabilities to understand at this point in our evolution. Would a skin cell "understand" the human creature in which it dwells? I think it's much the same with our relationship to "God", whatever its form.

 

I believe in an intelligent design theory; I just don't want to see the science that we know replaced with 'science' that is used to fit the narrative of what amounts to ancient legend.

[KathyM]

What facts do creationists draw their conclusions from? And please don't say 'testimony' as scientific evidence overrules testimony in a court of law, so that was just a silly argument further back in the thread.

 

If there were evidence of a 'supernatural being', it would no longer be supernatural. In the same way that electricity ceased to be, a few hundred years ago.

 

Therefore, it is fair to say a creationist is not open-minded, as they dismiss the evidence that disproves what the Bible says about how the world was formed, but it is not fair to level the same accusation at scientists, as they would accept what could be proved. Even if it were some guy or gal up in some heaven willing everything that happens on Earth into being.

The point is that there is no scientific evidence which can prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore, testimony is certainly a valid thing to take into consideration. If we go with the court of law scenario, the concrete scentific evidence is inconclusive or non existent. Therefore, testimony presented is a valid evidence to consider.

[pureinheart]

Truthbetold, I don't think you understand what theory means in science. It doesn't mean what you think it does. Therefore, your whole argument is bunk. I've already provided a definition of what theory actually means in science, so if you'd like to skip upthread, and have a peek, that'd be great.

 

I don't think anyone that lends credence to the not even a hypothesis that is creationism ought to be taken or considered with any level of seriousness.

 

As I said, you are free to believe in creationism all you want. I accept reality. I think you were right though-our worldviews will never mesh because of the fact you believe in fairytales, and I don't.

 

The entire post.

 

Truthbetold, there is plenty of proof. Mountains of it. All you have to do is look.

 

talkorigins.org is a grand place to start.

 

Failing to understand how something came to be and claiming therefore it must be false is a logical fallacy. Another argument from ignorance. Even so, what you are talking about isn't even evolution. It's abiogenesis, a completely separate field of study, and not remotely linked to evolution which is the explanation for the diversity of life.

 

Yes, it is bunk to call evolution "just a theory." Even you, in your own post, identified what a theory means in science. Do you test the theory of gravity on the tops of roofs by any chance? After all, it's just a theory. (Hint: don't try it).

 

Who ever said anything about randomly? It seems creationists adore throwing that word around to discredit something they clearly do not understand. Sure, we aren't entirely certain how that first cell came into being, but we do know that the building blocks for life can occur naturally. Science isn't even at its peak yet, and there's lots to yet that we need to understand. Not having an answer yet does not mean you ought to fill in the gaps with "God."

 

Also, why don't creationists spend some time gathering evidence for their own little ideas instead of trying to debunk evolution? You know, even if evolution was debunked tomorrow, it still would not prove creation, right?

 

Actually I found MOR's comments to be very condescending, if you prefer I can re-quote and point out each condescending statement.

 

I didn't quote your post Mick (accidentally due to being tired:o) and all of MOR's posts, although these are the examples.

[SoleMate]

TBT, I read your "Answers in Genesis" link, an article written by Jeffrey P. Tomkins. I was interested to see a reference to Current Genomics quoted as supporting the "Answers in Genesis" denial of evolution. Actually, it doesn't.

 

The Genetics of Vitamin C Loss in Vertebrates

 

The whole "Answers in Genesis" article relied on the validity of mainstream observational science, including the UCSC genome browser, grossly misreading, misinterpreting, and outright misstating it in a pseudo-learned attempt to mesh the undoubtedly compelling, voluminous,and rigorous data developed by mainstream secular science with the overwhelming desire to show that all "Answers" can indeed be found "in Genesis".

 

Example from your "Answers in Genesis" link:

 

"The loss of vitamin C synthesis in various passerine birds is due to instances of taxonomically independent deletion mutations in the GULO gene (Drouin, Godin, and Page 2011). Because these GULO mutations in birds do not follow the inferred evolutionary pattern of bird evolution, they are said to be recent events in terminal lineages. However, at least 11 different passerine bird genera with intact functional GULO genes have postulated lineages supposedly derived from ancestors with broken GULO genes—contradicting the standard dogma for bird evolution (Drouin, Godin, and Page 2011)."

 

Creates the strong impression that Drouin, Godin, and Page disagree with "the standard dogma for bird evolution", doesn't it? Well, they don't. They actually explain in detail how vitamin C synthesis has arisen multiple times. The "Answers in Genesis" author's mistake was to grossly misstate the observations and conclusions of Drouin et al.

 

Drouin et al.: "Although, this phylogeny cannot be used to determine whether the inability to synthesize vitamin C is ancestral or derived in several locations at the base of this tree, it clearly shows that Passeriformes that are unable to synthesize vitamin C are not monophyletic."

 

In fact, I checked several of the "references" in the "Answers in Genesis" article and they were ALL grossly misstated. None of the authors of those articles would agree with Jeffrey Tomkins in the least.

 

So pardon me while I go off and start my website on "Answers in the Koran, Bhagavad Gita and the Canterbury Tales".

[truthbetold]

Reasonable posts, TBT. I don't think it's going to change my cynicism toward religion a bit, but it at least makes an attempt to start some place reasonable.

 

For the record, I actually do believe that a "God" exists and that It created the Universe as we know it. As I've told my mostly atheist wife, I believe that this God - and its power - are probably beyond the human mind's capabilities to understand at this point in our evolution. Would a skin cell "understand" the human creature in which it dwells? I think it's much the same with our relationship to "God", whatever its form.

 

I believe in an intelligent design theory; I just don't want to see the science that we know replaced with 'science' that is used to fit the narrative of what amounts to ancient legend.

 

Thank you for understanding and extending respect and kindness even though you may not agree!

 

I think that's all any of us can hope for when divided, but your post exemplifies it can be done!

 

SoleMate, I only tried to give an explanation to where some of us may be coming from. It's not going to be perfect, and any theory isn't going to be. Either side on the scientific end can be scrutinized.

 

As I mentioned (ad nauseam:p) it's "good enough" for me with the huge discrepancies of "other" biology facts such as molecular structure and complexity, chemistry, math...that whole picture, as well as my faith. Nothing either side says is going to be good enough or "enough" for the other side, that much is obvious. So it seems pointless to magnify either side's faults per se.

 

It was grossly misunderstood that those of us on the side of Creationism, are doing so with blinders on. That's all, pretty much in a nutshell:)

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

we evolved from apes.......so why are there still apes .....i have more problems with believing in the theory of evolution than i do believing in a god above......maybe its just me but i think you truly believe in one or the other...because they really are polarized ....creation or evolution......

 

Common mistake.

 

We did NOT evolve from apes.

we are primates who share a common ancestor; at one point, genes diverted and we took different paths.

 

paleoanthropologists believe chimpanzees are our closest biological relatives. According to evidence left by fossils, the panin and hominid paths most likely split approximately 5 million years ago. The panin path eventually evolved into the modern chimp, and the hominid path developed into the modern human.

 

But we certainly did not evolve from apes.

[JamesM]

Common mistake.

 

We did NOT evolve from apes.

 

Common response to pick out an alleged minor mistake that is actually not a correct response if one looks at the evolutionary theory.

 

According to the evolutionary theory, cladistically speaking, humans are apes. Therefore, apes and man are both apes. One is just an hominid that is very ape like. And logically speaking, both must have evolved from an ancestor that was either an ape or very apelike.

 

Here it is stated very well....

 

To begin with, let's take a step back. Although the evolution of hominid features is sometimes put in the framework of "apes vs. humans," the fact is that humans are apes, just as they are primates and mammals.

 

Good article that explains how really we did evolve from apes....if you believe the evolutionary theory that is.

 

The emergence of humans

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

I'm not going to argue this any further, except to quote something I read a while ago:

 

"Culture: Roughly everything we do, and monkeys don't."

 

FitzRoy Somerset, 4th Baron Raglan.

 

Always makes me smile, particularly when I look at some 'cultured' people.....

[JamesM]

I'm not going to argue this any further, except to quote something I read a while ago:

 

"Culture: Roughly everything we do, and monkeys don't."

 

FitzRoy Somerset, 4th Baron Raglan.

 

Always makes me smile, particularly when I look at some 'cultured' people.....

 

I would have to agree with that statement. And some of the apes I see at the zoo are more civilized than the people around me.

 

BTW, welcome to the board. New people welcome especially when they bring a fresh view to this forum.

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

Thank you.

Nice to be here. It seems like a good forum....

Fortunately, nobody has as yet chewed my head off, or, as they say, "ripped me a new one" but it's early days yet.

[TouchedByViolet]

Evolution is a fact. It's not about belief, it's about understanding.

[JamesM]

Evolution is a fact.

 

Nope. Still a theory.

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

Nope. Still a theory.

 

Well how ever much of a theory you say it is, there's still far more tried and tested evidence to back it up than Creationism has.

 

Feel free to "rip me a new one".....

[dichotomy]

Just like I believe in the theory of gravity.

 

It has no bearing on my belief in Christ and his teachings.

 

Then again - I do not believe literally in every word of the modern translated, human written, church council approved, bible.

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

Just like I believe in the theory of gravity.

 

It has no bearing on my belief in Christ and his teachings.

 

Then again - I do not believe literally in every word of the modern translated, human written, church council approved, bible.

You'd be amazed at how many Christians I know who feel the same way you do.

One pastor I know, who is a good friend of mine, tells me most of his flock are now treating the Ten Commandments as 'Ten Suggestions'....

 

[JamesM]

Well how ever much of a theory you say it is, there's still far more tried and tested evidence to back it up than Creationism has.

 

Feel free to "rip me a new one".....

 

That was not my point. I wasn't saying it was "just a theory" to minimize it. But no matter how tested it is (allegedly ) and even if it is true, it is still the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of General Relativity is not a fact no matter how proven it may be.

 

However, as you may know, I don't believe it is as tested as you think since no one invented time travel yet so as to go back and test it.

 

No ripping intended.

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

That was not my point. I wasn't saying it was "just a theory" to minimize it. But no matter how tested it is (allegedly ) and even if it is true, it is still the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of General Relativity is not a fact no matter how proven it may be.

 

However, as you may know, I don't believe it is as tested as you think since no one invented time travel yet so as to go back and test it.

 

No ripping intended.

No, true... time travel has not yet been perfected, no matter what Groundhog day may wish to tell us....

 

But there exist some pretty amazing scientific, chemical and Physical methods to test the age and origin of materials found everywhere...

 

Our current science is teaching us much about our past, and I'm not necessarily talking of pre-historic matters...

 

This story, for example, has proven what happened to an English King; a mystery which remained, until recently, decidedly unsolved...

Now, finally, after centuries, a confirmed British Monarch's remains, may be afforded the interment they merit.