Reconciling Evolution With The Scriptures

[littlechild]

Littlechild:

You wanted a Christian scientist that supported the theory of Evolution. I gave you a location where to find them.

I don't recall asking for that, I think you misunderstood. I know there are christians who have fallen for the evolution story. But I am not persuaded by 'maybe' we came from apes, and 'perhaps' a host of impossibly fortuitous processes all worked together in a random undirected fashion to produce the miracle of life we are witnessing every day.

I can live with other's points of view, but until I see sufficient evidence I won't change my mind. You can't fool me by claiming that gradual evolution is nowhere in evidence because the time gaps are so huge that we can't expect to see it. You can't tell me that its logical to believe that one species can become another when you can't even get bacteria in a test tube to mutate into a nonbacterial entity. If that simple life form can't do it, then neither can more complex life forms.

[e=mc2]

littlechild

The possiblity that life formed from inert materials by random chances are much greater than mathematics says is remotely likely. Why do you adhere so to such a slim possiblity?

Again, you demonstrate that you have never even read Darwin, instead relying on far lesser lights and unscientific junk from IDers. Show me anywhere in Darwin's writings where he said he was talking about how life originated. Anywhere.... Pigliucci said it the best perhaps, "Darwinism actually only deals with the variety of life on earth, and it therefore assumes that both life and the earth were here to begin with. Admittedly, both the origin of the universe, and the origin of life are crucial fields of scientific endeavor, but they belong to cosmology and biochemistry respectively, not to evolutionary biology." He further says something you might wantto seriously sit up and take notice of littlechild. " To apply a theory to something it was not designed to explain is a cheap rhetorical trick to convince the audience that it doesn't work." (Massimo Pegliucci, Tales of the Rational: Skeptical Essays About Nature and Science, Freethought Press, (2000): 161 (one of the 3 books I read this week, so its also fresh on my mind)..

[e=mc2]

littlechild

The possiblity that life formed from inert materials by random chances are much greater than mathematics says is remotely likely. Why do you adhere so to such a slim possiblity?

Again, you demonstrate that you have never even read Darwin, instead relying on far lesser lights and unscientific junk from IDers. Show me anywhere in Darwin's writings where he said he was talking about how life originated. Anywhere.... Pigliucci said it the best perhaps, "Darwinism actually only deals with the variety of life on earth, and it therefore assumes that both life and the earth were here to begin with. Admittedly, both the origin of the universe, and the origin of life are crucial fields of scientific endeavor, but they belong to cosmology and biochemistry respectively, not to evolutionary biology." He further says something you might wantto seriously sit up and take notice of littlechild. " To apply a theory to something it was not designed to explain is a cheap rhetorical trick to convince the audience that it doesn't work." (Massimo Pegliucci, Tales of the Rational: Skeptical Essays About Nature and Science, Freethought Press, (2000): 161 (one of the 3 books I read this week, so its also fresh on my mind)..

[e=mc2]

littlechild

The possiblity that life formed from inert materials by random chances are much greater than mathematics says is remotely likely. Why do you adhere so to such a slim possiblity?

Again, you demonstrate that you have never even read Darwin, instead relying on far lesser lights and unscientific junk from IDers. Show me anywhere in Darwin's writings where he said he was talking about how life originated. Anywhere.... Pigliucci said it the best perhaps, "Darwinism actually only deals with the variety of life on earth, and it therefore assumes that both life and the earth were here to begin with. Admittedly, both the origin of the universe, and the origin of life are crucial fields of scientific endeavor, but they belong to cosmology and biochemistry respectively, not to evolutionary biology." He further says something you might wantto seriously sit up and take notice of littlechild. " To apply a theory to something it was not designed to explain is a cheap rhetorical trick to convince the audience that it doesn't work." (Massimo Pegliucci, Tales of the Rational: Skeptical Essays About Nature and Science, Freethought Press, (2000): 161 (one of the 3 books I read this week, so its also fresh on my mind)..

[e=mc2]

Sorry about multiple posts.littlechild

I know there are christians who have fallen for the evolution story. But I am not persuaded by 'maybe' we came from apes,

Such gross ignorance of Darwin shows up in absolutely every post you make. Darwin never said we are directly descended from the apes. Put away Behe and Johnson, and read Darwin at least. Good gads man!

littlechildYou can't tell me that its logical to believe that one species can become another when you can't even get bacteria in a test tube to mutate into a nonbacterial entity. If that simple life form can't do it, then neither can more complex life forms.

Ahem... are you asking for a few weeks for this to occur? Darwin had BILLIONS OF YEARS in geological time for it to occur, and it did, as per the fossil record.

[e=mc2]

littlechild

I ask for a single case of a beneficial morphological change. One case. Darwin says they happened to all life forms. So where are they?

Piece of cake...... Your eyes....... your ears...... your hands........ your brain........... Any other silly questions? Are you pretending these are *not* beneficial morphological changes?!

[littlechild]

Sorry about multiple posts.littlechildSuch gross ignorance of Darwin shows up in absolutely every post you make. Darwin never said we are directly descended from the apes. Put away Behe and Johnson, and read Darwin at least. Good gads man!Ahem... are you asking for a few weeks for this to occur? Darwin had BILLIONS OF YEARS ingeological time for it to occur, and it did, as per the fossil record.

OK, this has turned ugly, and your arguments are becoming circular.

And some of your posts are turning into descriptions of me and not an elucidation of the topic. Adieu for now.

[e=mc2]

littlechild

If its "FACT" then why not prove it in a way that can't be explained by other means, better?

Show me any other discipline that *has* proven it better than evolution.....

OK, this has turned ugly, and your arguments are becoming circular. And some of your posts are turning into descriptions of me and not an elucidation of the topic. Adieu for now.

That's because, even though you refuse to recognize the beneficial morphological changes in your very own body, they are there for you to enjoy. You asked for beneficial changes, and you own many of them. YOU personally OWN many of them, yet you refuse to acknowledge this. Absolutely astonishing!

OK, this has turned ugly, and your arguments are becoming circular. And some of your posts are turning into descriptions of me and not an elucidation of the topic. Adieu for now.

Not really. I am just not buying into your unscientific and unsupported claims of Intelligent Design. It's not ugly to test it, its beautiful and its the scientific way.

[littlechild]

Again, you demonstrate that you have never even read Darwin, instead relying on far lesser lights and unscientific junk from IDers. Show me anywhere in Darwin's writings where he said he was talking about how life originated. Anywhere.... Pigliucci said it the best perhaps, "Darwinism actually only deals with the variety of life on earth, and it therefore assumes that both life and the earth were here to begin with. Admittedly, both the origin of the universe, and the origin of life are crucial fields of scientific endeavor, but they belong to cosmology and biochemistry respectively, not to evolutionary biology." He further says something you might wantto seriously sit up and take notice of littlechild. " To apply a theory to something it was not designed to explain is a cheap rhetorical trick to convince the audience that it doesn't work." (Massimo Pegliucci, Tales of the Rational: Skeptical Essays About Nature and Science, Freethought Press, (2000): 161 (one of the 3 books I read this week, so its also fresh on my mind)..

And you are talking down to me and reading things into my posts. Darwin never said he knew how life originated, I know that. Hello, can we talk about more than one thing here, or are we limited to a narrow focus on one thing at a time, like an evolutionary tunnel?

Thanks for the discussion. It's been fun if a little heated.

My main point is, common descent needs a mechanism that isn't explained by any known evidence to date, and none of these penny ante things you have come up make up for that deficiency.

[e=mc2]

littlechild

common descent needs a mechanism that isn't explained by any known evidence to date, and none of these penny ante things you have come up make up for that deficiency.

Just because *you* refuse to understand genetics, does not mean there is not a mechanism. Just because *you* refuse to realize its genetics that is the mechanism, does not prove that the umpteen thousands upon thousands of scientists the world over, who are using genetics are wrong. Our very diseases and their mutations (Penecillin? Does that even ring any bells for you?) are PROOF that the mechanism IS working, and right before our very eyes. Ask ANY medical doctor if they have yet found a way to destroy the continually mutating and changing HIV virus. ANY miedical doctor! And the mutations are obviously beneficial..... no, not to us, to the HIV Virus!

littlechildThanks for the discussion. It's been fun if a little heated.

Oh, my good pleasure. No, no, its not heated whatever. Just a fun discussion! I hope you are now determined to quit reading the tabloid tissues of ID absurdity and get on with the real stuff, namely Darwin's writings himself.

littlechildAnd you are talking down to me and reading things into my posts. Darwin never said he knew how life originated, I know that.

Then quit telling me that's evolution.

[J.S. Mill]

littlechild,

What evidence would convince you of the validity of evolution by natural selection?

[e=mc2]

littlechild

or are we limited to a narrow focus on one thing at a time, like an evolutionary tunnel?

You're the one who is bringing up all this silly ID junk with a shotgun approach, not I. I just refuse to accept your pseudoscientific silliness as valid arguments against the real science and demonstrably real evidence for and of evolution. I have given you numerous sources I seriously suggest you begin reading that, now that you have wasted most of your time with the twirlygig arguments of the Rube Goldberg kind of ID noise you keep bringing up.

[e=mc2]

littlechild, I told you to read the evidence in Darwin's book Origin of Species, and you told me that this is

Irrational. If you read it, then state it here and now.

It is irrational to let you know what book the evidence for evolution are in?!? Is this more Philip Johnson sort of lawyering going on here? This is an utterly absurd response! I will state it here and now. I have not only read the Origin of Species, I am re-reading it again. There. I stated it.

[semlogo]

It is not necessary to prove intelligent design in order to defeat evolution theory. It is only necessary to require scientific evidence that evolution has even a possibility of occurring - which you like all your sympathizers have yet to do at the level you claim must absolutely happen in order for your theory to be justified.

But I didn't expect you to answer with rational real evidence - why should you be any different from the other multi-level marketing scientists who like to enjoy the fruits of labors not undertaken?

You've really been brainwashed.

[e=mc2]

littlechild

And finally, Michael Behe responds quite adequately to the flaws in Ken Miller's arguments here:

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_responsetokmiller0101.htm

Miller can't take a mousetrap, twist a few pieces of it, and claim, aha! This is no longer irreducibly complex, is it?

Nonsense! Miller testified FIRST in the Dover Trial, and Behe had EVERY opportunity to refute him IN COURT, where it counts as whether ID is science or a sham. This in 2004. It was a 6 week long trial, not a mere hour to each participant. Of the several witnesses on the side of ID (Philip Johnson, in typical lawyer fashion, failed to even show up and make a case), ALL witnesses except two (Behe being one of the unfortunate two who actually testified) REFUSED TO GET ON THE WITNESS STAND. They ***REFUSED*** to testify for ID. Behe on the stand actually said he *disagreed* with the definintion of ID in the ID science book "On Pandas and Men"! Then he admitted on cross examination that NOTHING HE HAS WRITTEN IS SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIABLE or SCIENTIFIC. Behe admitted his materials on irreducible complexity are ***NOT*** scientific. He was destroyed in court, where it counts, where law is made, where he could have refuted Miller, and Behe failed to refute Miller in court. It's history folks, not me making this up. Giberson's book Saving Darwin (2008) tells the entire story and historical situation of how ID failed to prove it is science. Nothing they say is science. It FAILED ***AS SCIENCE***

Get this already. Behe's wishings after the fact are pablum and sore losing. He failed in court to make his case for irrecducible complexity. Miller destroyed Behe's science.

[Kyle]

I need a clarification with with regards to macro/micro evolution.

Are their any scientists that believe in macro evolution?

Because last time I checked, evolution means microevolution.

I could be wrong, but it seems the defintion "macroevolution" was created simply just to get shock value and obscure the teachings of Darwin.

I could be wrong, and I just want to research the scientists who believe in Macroevolution.... if they are out there.

[J.S. Mill]

Evolution by natural selection most definitely means macroevolution. If a scientist tells you they believe in evolution, 99.9% of the time they mean macroevolution.

[e=mc2]

littlechild

My main point is, common descent needs a mechanism that isn't explained by any known evidence to date, and none of these penny ante things you have come up make up for that deficiency.

You mentioned that you read a gent named Michael Behe, his book Darwin's Black Box, yes? How ironic that he says the exact opposite of what you say here

"For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (for all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my collegues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world.." (Behe, Darwin's Black Box, p. 5)

[Kyle]

I thought microevolution meant little changes over time, while macro evolution meant large changes over a short amount of time (ex. dinosaur into bird).

My original point was to see if any scientists believe in large jumps that many creationists seem to put forth. I guess I am obviously confused about the definitions, sorry about that.

[ThePhy]

I need a clarification with with regards to macro/micro evolution.

Are their any scientists that believe in macro evolution?

Because last time I checked, evolution means microevolution.

I could be wrong, but it seems the defintion "macroevolution" was created simply just to get shock value and obscure the teachings of Darwin.

I could be wrong, and I just want to research the scientists who believe in Macroevolution.... if they are out there.

A year ago I did a bit of research on how many scientists buy into evolution. I found over 80,000 currently active scientists that had either directly voiced support for it, or were members of major scientific societies that issued specific statements supporting it.

This confirms similar numbers derived from extrapolating the signatories to â??Project Steveâ? to the entire US population.

macro.

[J.S. Mill]

I thought microevolution meant little changes over time, while macro evolution meant large changes over a short amount of time (ex. dinosaur into bird).

Microevolution refers to small changes that occur over a short period of time (something even many creationists agree happens), like with peppered moths. Macroevolution refers to more substantial changes over a long period of time that are the result of many instances of microevolution, like with dinosaurs to birds.

My original point was to see if any scientists believe in large jumps that many creationists seem to put forth. I guess I am obviously confused about the definitions, sorry about that.

No scientist thinks that a velociraptor turned into a canary after one, ten, or even a hundred generations. There is some debate in the scientific community over the speed of evolution, though. The late Stephen Jay Gould thought that evolution happened in fits and starts, while other scientists conceive of it as a more or less continuous, gradual process. But the arguments in the scientific community are over 100,000 vs. 2,000,000 years, not between slow accumulation of mutations and rapid, T-rex to parakeet saltations, as the creationists would have you believe.

[Bee Eff]

I need a clarification with with regards to macro/micro evolution.

Are their any scientists that believe in macro evolution?

Because last time I checked, evolution means microevolution.

I could be wrong, but it seems the defintion "macroevolution" was created simply just to get shock value and obscure the teachings of Darwin.

I could be wrong, and I just want to research the scientists who believe in Macroevolution.... if they are out there.

Macroevolution is the result of a large period of microevolution leading to one line of descent of an originating organism being drastically different from said originating organism. Thus, one species rising from another is the typical aspect that is argued against. The argument of, "I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution", is an attempt to equivocate on the subject of evolution. If microevolution occurs, eventual species differentiation must be possible, and thus macroevolution.

[Kyle]

Thank you guys for clearing that up.

[katherine the great]

I need a clarification with with regards to macro/micro evolution.

Are their any scientists that believe in macro evolution?

Because last time I checked, evolution means microevolution.

I could be wrong, but it seems the defintion "macroevolution" was created simply just to get shock value and obscure the teachings of Darwin.

I could be wrong, and I just want to research the scientists who believe in Macroevolution.... if they are out there.

"Macroevolution" is a creationist term. It is more properly called "Speciation." And yes, virtually all biologists believe this.

[thesometimesaint]

A good example is the Neanderthals. The small differences in humans(we're smaller and lighter) allowed us to run faster and further in the changing European environments(more open areas and less dense woods). It allowed humans to be able to out run and therefore out hunt the Neanderthals. Slowly we just outlived and out reproduced them. Evolution works.