thesometimesaint Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Oh I thought it was just a devise to make evolution palatable to creationists.I really can't get into what motivates all other people. But pushers of Creationism, like the Discovery Institute, have a self avowed political agenda with is unrelated to the actual science of evolution.
Bikeemikey Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 (edited) Evolutionary theory simply is not compatible with the fall and atonement.It strikes me as extremely unwise to cite a theological concept (that we know very little about) as an ideological objection to a scientific concept (that we also know very little about - though more than we know about the Fall).My observation is that Religious doctrines tend to provide "what will happen" data in a very narrow sphere with a very limited amount of process data, where as science tends to be more invested in process data and more ambiguous on what will happen, science tends to express things in terms of this "may" result.I also happen to totally disagree with you statement about the lack of compatibility between evolution, the fall and the atonement. At most you can say, "my limited understanding of evolution is incompatible with my limited understanding of the fall and the atonement".But then that would be admitting we don't really know. Edited July 22, 2013 by Bikeemikey
thesometimesaint Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 You need not be concerned about my ability to understand. I have been told that I am a person of reasonable intelligence and I have been educated reasonably well so don't worry about my cognitive abilities. Just dumb it down a bit and I will follow.The "irrelevant" random changes can fit very well into micro-evolution."Why are birds more similar to each other than birds to mammals?" Is this a trick question? Birds are birds why wouldn't they be similar?Modern birds are just dinosaurs that go by the name Fried Chicken.
ERayR Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 It strikes me as extremely unwise to cite a theological concept (that we know very little about) as an ideological objection to a scientific concept (that we also know very little about - though more than we know about the Fall).My observation is that Religious doctrines tend to provide "what will happen" data in a very narrow sphere with a very limited amount of process data, where as science tends to be more invested in process data and more ambiguous on what will happen.But don't you think it unwise to a process that is incompatible with a "what happened" occurrence?
cdowis Posted July 22, 2013 Author Posted July 22, 2013 (edited) I don't think you fully understand.Let's see if I understand your questions.Why did the Creator throw in the functionally irrelevant random changes?We do not live in Paradise. For the same reason we have mesquitoes, weeds, diseases -- its all part of a fallen world that we live in. Why are their more random changes the further back you go on the evolutionary tree?"If I were the Designer, I would do things differently". Anyway, clearly that is how the design process worked.Why are birds more similar to each other than birds to mammals?Uhhh.... why is a bird similar to a bird, rather than to a dog or cat? If a cat were also a bird, that would make finding food very easy.Anyway, let me think about that one. Edited July 22, 2013 by cdowis 1
ERayR Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 (edited) Uhhh.... why is a bird similar to a bird, rather than to a dog or cat? Let me think about that one.I am having some difficulty with that one myself. Edited July 22, 2013 by ERayR
thesometimesaint Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 "Why are birds more similar to each other than birds to mammals?"Birds and mammals diverged from a common ancestor a long time ago.
Hamilton Porter Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Why are we still debating evolution? Goodness gracious, should we debate a flat earth as well?
Hamilton Porter Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Birds and mammals diverged from a common ancestor a long time ago.Birds have a four-chambered heart like we do. New Caledonian crows can manipulate technology better than our chimpanzee cousins.
ERayR Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Birds and mammals diverged from a common ancestor a long time ago.That is the assumption he was using. It is not my assumption at all.
ERayR Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Why are we still debating evolution? Goodness gracious, should we debate a flat earth as well?Because there are some who think that some of us are poor benighted souls without intelligence, education or reasoning ability and that all we need is to have it explained in itty bitty evolutionary steps and we will fall in line.
cdowis Posted July 22, 2013 Author Posted July 22, 2013 Why are we still debating evolution? Goodness gracious, should we debate a flat earth as well?Are you going to address the quantum jump issue that I raised? Organisms have developed intelligent system that must work, and do not survive step by step development -- the heart, respiratory, and endochromatic interface with each, providing control functions. I am not speaking of the evolution of the particular organs, the "plumbing", but the communication and control functions that exist. So if you can stop laughing, perhaps you can address that issue. There are others, such as the development of complex symbiotic relationships.
Bikeemikey Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 But don't you think it unwise to a process that is incompatible with a "what happened" occurrence?Can you please clarify what you mean by this... I don't think I quite understand what you are expressing.
thesometimesaint Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Are you going to address the quantum jump issue that I raised? Organisms have developed intelligent system that must work, and do not survive step by step development -- the heart, respiratory, and endochromatic interface with each, providing control functions. I am not speaking of the evolution of the particular organs, the "plumbing", but the communication and control functions that exist.So if you can stop laughing, perhaps you can address that issue. There are others, such as the development of complex symbiotic relationships.We have many transitional forms with survive quite nicely with just rudimentary systems.
thesometimesaint Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 (edited) That is the assumption he was using. It is not my assumption at all.Obviously. But immaterial to the discussion. Science works because the basic assumption is that there is a reality, and that we can measure, understand, and make predictions about that reality. Edited July 22, 2013 by thesometimesaint
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Nope. Your ability to extrapolate does not seem limited to evolution. All I was saying is your sudden withdrawal from discourse with him is an inability to answer his points.Snark noted. CDowis withdrew from discourse with me. His/her refusal to engage started early in this thread. When it takes 30 minutes to type a post and it is ignored it just isn't worth the effort. If you would like to see one of her / his points addressed by me you are more than welcome to bring it up.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Because there are some who think that some of us are poor benighted souls without intelligence, education or reasoning ability and that all we need is to have it explained in itty bitty evolutionary steps and we will fall in line.I'm pretty sure this thread was started by a creationist who started spouting nonsense about how evolution had just been rebutted. So, might want to reevaluate there?
ERayR Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Can you please clarify what you mean by this... I don't think I quite understand what you are expressing.It all depends on where you place your faith, in unprovable scripture or in unprovable scientific theory's. For me I start from the assumption that there is a core of fact in the scriptures. This is reinforced by the spiritual experiences I have received. I believe the account of the fall and the account of the atonement are factual. That being said man evolving over long periods of time is an incompatible process with the concept of a fall of the literal offspring of God. First the concept of a common ancestor evolution is one of ascension from the primitive to the complex, from savage to civilized instead of from a higher state to a lower one. And when you remove the fall you remove the need for an atonement. You turn "what happened" into a fairy tale to make your process work.
ERayR Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Obviously. But immaterial to the discussion. Science works because the basic assumption is that there is a reality, and that we can measure, understand, and make predictions about that reality.Very material to the discussion. Where you end up is very dependent on what assumptions you start with. I am led to the conclusion that the measurable data has been used to extrapolate incorrect conclusions.
ERayR Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Snark noted. CDowis withdrew from discourse with me. His/her refusal to engage started early in this thread. When it takes 30 minutes to type a post and it is ignored it just isn't worth the effort. If you would like to see one of her / his points addressed by me you are more than welcome to bring it up.Sometimes others, including me, have another life and are not able to stay with the conversation continuously. In fact I am expecting it to soon happen to me today.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 You need not be concerned about my ability to understand. I have been told that I am a person of reasonable intelligence and I have been educated reasonably well so don't worry about my cognitive abilities. Just dumb it down a bit and I will follow.The "irrelevant" random changes can fit very well into micro-evolution."Why are birds more similar to each other than birds to mammals?" Is this a trick question? Birds are birds why wouldn't they be similar?I am really sorry if you thought anything I said implied that you were not of reasonable intelligence. You seem to be very bright. I certainly haven't found much of a correlation between intelligence and acceptance of evolution - I am certain that there are many dumb people that believe in evolution. "Why are birds more similar to each other than birds to mammals?" Is this a trick question? Birds are birds why wouldn't they be similar?I have a sincere question. I started talking to danielwoods about Cytochrome c because he asked for clarification as to why it was compelling evidence for evolution. Is this something that you would like to understand? I really couldn't care less about whether you accept evolution or not and do not have tons of time trying to explain if its something you don't care about. If you would like to understand the evolutionary view on this particular issue, I will put forth an effort to elaborate further.
thesometimesaint Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 Very material to the discussion. Where you end up is very dependent on what assumptions you start with. I am led to the conclusion that the measurable data has been used to extrapolate incorrect conclusions.That is always possible. However innumerable tests, over many divergent fields of study, have confirmed that evolution over long periods of time is how it was done.
ERayR Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 I am really sorry if you thought anything I said implied that you were not of reasonable intelligence. You seem to be very bright. I certainly haven't found much of a correlation between intelligence and acceptance of evolution - I am certain that there are many dumb people that believe in evolution.I have a sincere question. I started talking to danielwoods about Cytochrome c because he asked for clarification as to why it was compelling evidence for evolution. Is this something that you would like to understand? I really couldn't care less about whether you accept evolution or not and do not have tons of time trying to explain if its something you don't care about. If you would like to understand the evolutionary view on this particular issue, I will put forth an effort to elaborate further.I have skimmed the subject on the internet. It appears to me to be a process of programming death in certain cells in the body. If this is correct I see no conflict with a creation origin for it. I am really not interested in an in depth biological discussion here and really can't see where this helps the evolutionary argument.
ERayR Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 That is always possible. However innumerable tests, over many divergent fields of study, have confirmed that evolution over long periods of time is how it was done.No not confirmed. All that has been confirmed is that changes happen. It has not been confirmed that these changes results in changes of the macro-evolution type. That is what is extrapolated because because of the beginning assumptions.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 22, 2013 Posted July 22, 2013 (edited) I have skimmed the subject on the internet. It appears to me to be a process of programming death in certain cells in the body. This is not correct.If this is correct I see no conflict with a creation origin for it.As has already been said on this thread, nothing will ever disprove creationism as it doesn't pertain to science.I am really not interested in an in depth biological discussion here and really can't see where this helps the evolutionary argument.My question for you was if you wanted to be able to see why scientists believe this supports the evolutionary argument - whether or not you wanted to increase your understanding (of others points of view). I will take this as a no. Edited July 22, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding
Recommended Posts