Human Evolution

[Rob Osborn]

You might have a point if micro evolution was all we observed.  However we directly observe micro-evolution.  We observe the geographic distribution of species. We observe vestigial traits. We observe DNA. We observe small differences in essential proteins that branch according the evolutionary tree of life.  We observe fossilized genes in our DNA exactly as predicted by evolution (no feather genes for us). We observe the fossil record complete with transitional organisms. We observe large changes in small periods with artificial selection. We observe that oceanic islands have native species of mammals, reptiles and amphibians (with limited exceptions) while continental islands do have these animals. We observe similarities in embryonic development. We observe cases of bad design. We observe atavisms. We observe all these things and they all point to macro evolution. 

 

All of these things have the potential to fossilize the theory. All we have to do is find fossilized humans next to fossilized dinosaur bones. We could have had cytochrome c protein that is used in birds (with absolutely no detrement), instead ours is identical to chimpanzees.  There are so many places where evolution could have been proven wrong.  Countless places.  Instead day after day, month after month, year after year the evidence keeps on accumulating and lining up in a manner that shows evolution really happened.

But, macro-evolution is still something not seen yet hoped for as part of your beliefs. Its the same exact faith you put into a theory that you also hope for spiritual things.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But, macro-evolution is still something not seen yet hoped for as part of your beliefs. Its the same exact faith you put into a theory that you also hope for spiritual things.

Rob what is your theory of creation that explains everything in my quoted post?

Edited September 27, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Rob Osborn]

Rob what is your theory of creation that explains everything in my quoted post?

Not sure what you are asking for. Say it again please

[Stone holm]

Oh migosh this thread is turning looney. Scientific theories are not just random theories like conspiracy theories. The are postulates that are backed up with overwhelming evidence. They may change over time but only as new and better explanations of the evidence or new strong evidence appears. Evolution has withstood an enormous amount of inquiry, and it still remains the best scientific explanation that we have. Does that mean an Adam and Eve did not exist? No. Does it mean there wasn't a garden spot in Missouri where some fascinatingly important transitions took place? No. But our belief in such things are religious beliefs which as yet have no scientific basis. Clear observation has to suggest that we an animals are very, very similar especially similar to primate mammals. All the observable evidence suggests we came from a similar source. Yet, it appears that there may be something very peculiar about modern humans. Probably that peculiarity is buried somewhere in the garden story. But for now , we do not know. But to claim that species have always existed as the species that now exist like there is some physical barrier which prohibits moving of one group of a species over time into another species simply has no real scientific support. It is simply a misguided attempt to try and force the evidence into support of religious beliefs.

[Brian 2.0]

Faith is Faith no matter what arena it is in.  Have you seen an evolutionary species change with your own eyes?  But you have faith that the Micro-evolutionary changes you have observed results in that change.

 

The question again is: 

Why is it so hard for macro-evolutionists to admit to an element of faith?  Don't you all have any faith in the interpretation of the data you are defending without trying to redefine the terms. 

 

It's a matter of semantics, but I think most have differing definitions of "faith" in these circumstances, and so they don't want to say, "yes, I have faith in macroevolution" as if that "faith" equates with someone's faith in God or something else like that.

 

Do you think these two sentences have the same definition of faith?:

 

"I have faith that atoms exist and contain electrons"

"I have faith that Jesus Christ is my Savior who took upon himself my sins"

 

These two "faith" methods and uses are quite different... the "evidence" used in the formation of these two faiths are from very different disciplines, very different at an epistomolgical level... which is why those on the board are hesistant to answer your question, because it seems to contain a supposition that these two "faiths" are the same.

 

I guess one could argue that their faith in atoms and electrons comes from personal witness from god, but most peoples belief in atoms and electrons doesn't come from that source.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Freedom]

But, macro-evolution is still something not seen yet hoped for as part of your beliefs. Its the same exact faith you put into a theory that you also hope for spiritual things.

Well, unfortunately for you, this is patently false. macro-evolution has been observed over and over again with species that have very short lifespans. All the evidence points to it. The only reason you reject the evidence is because dogma that has no basis in scripture.

[Freedom]

 

The question again is: 

Why is it so hard for macro-evolutionists to admit to an element of faith?  Don't you all have any faith in the interpretation of the data you are defending?

 

Here is your challenge, you have no data to be interpreted so your believe system isn't even faith, it is pure fantasy. It is not based on anything measurable either in the tangible world or in any written scripture. Do I have faith in the interpretation of the data? yes, because it is verifiable. It is not possible to have faith in creationism because it is not verifiable. I can have faith in God because I can test it and feel the spirit. So with religious matters, my evidence is the holy ghost. With scientific matter, my evidence is right in front of all of us. Your rejection of evolution is based on absolutely nothing. You have no support in the scriptures and you have no support in the material world so it is not possible to have faith in your model.

[ERayR]

Here is your challenge, you have no data to be interpreted so your believe system isn't even faith, it is pure fantasy. It is not based on anything measurable either in the tangible world or in any written scripture. Do I have faith in the interpretation of the data? yes, because it is verifiable. It is not possible to have faith in creationism because it is not verifiable. I can have faith in God because I can test it and feel the spirit. So with religious matters, my evidence is the holy ghost. With scientific matter, my evidence is right in front of all of us. Your rejection of evolution is based on absolutely nothing. You have no support in the scriptures and you have no support in the material world so it is not possible to have faith in your model.

 

 

You have no idea what my model is.  Not having any idea what my model is you do not have any idea what support I have for it.

 

Thank you for admitting your model is faith based.

[ERayR]

Rob what is your theory of creation that explains everything in my quoted post?

 

Why the diversion and why the reluctance to admit to the faith inherent in your theory.  Since nobody here was there when it occurred any theory presented contains some measure of faith.

[Freedom]

You have no idea what my model is.  Not having any idea what my model is you do not have any idea what support I have for it.

 

Thank you for admitting your model is faith based.

There you go creating new definitions of terms and creating a strawman argument. My model is not faith based, it is based on evidence. When something is faith based, it is assumed that there is no empirical evidence. Your model is to reject evolution without feeling any duty to provide supporting evidence for this rejection. Everything requires faith to a degree, but faith still requires evidence. The rejection of evolution is not faith based because it does not have any supporting evidence. The issue is the type of evidence that is required. Religions faith requires evidence of the spirit. Scientific faith requires imperical data. You are trying to imply that evolution has as much evidence as the spirit world. You are distorting the definitions to suite your notions.

[ERayR]

It's a matter of semeantics, but I think most have differing definitions of "faith" in these circumstances, and so they don't want to say, "yes, I have faith in macroevolution" as if that "faith" equates with someone's faith in God or something else like that.

 

Do you think these two sentences have the same definition of faith?:

 

"I have faith that atoms exist and contain electrons"

"I have faith that Jesus Christ is my Savior who took upon himself my sins"

 

These two "faith" methods and uses are quite different... the "evidence" used in the formation of these two faiths are from very different disciplines, very different at an epistomolgical level... which is why those on the board are hesistant to answer your question, because it seems to contain a supposition that these two "faiths" are the same.

 

I guess one could argue that their faith in atoms and electrons comes from personal witness from god, but most peoples belief in atoms and electrons doesn't come from that source.

 

Paul's expression of what faith is was brought up.  I think Paul's definition fits in the secular as well as the religious.

 

I am not arguing anything about their faith in atoms and electrons emanating from God.  It may but more likely it emanates from the empirical evidence and their interpretation of where it points.One may have faith their favorite mentor will not lead them astray.  

Edited September 27, 2013 by ERayR

[Freedom]

Why the diversion and why the reluctance to admit to the faith inherent in your theory.  Since nobody here was there when it occurred any theory presented contains some measure of faith.

You are the one playing with diversions. What is your theory.

[Freedom]

Paul's expression of what faith is was brought up.  I think Paul's definition fits in the secular as well as the religious.

So are you suggesting that we are not able to see fossils, dna and micro-organisms? Evolution is a theory to explain the data. If evolution is false, you must have an alternative theory.

[ERayR]

There you go creating new definitions of terms and creating a strawman argument. My model is not faith based, it is based on evidence. When something is faith based, it is assumed that there is no empirical evidence. Your model is to reject evolution without feeling any duty to provide supporting evidence for this rejection. Everything requires faith to a degree, but faith still requires evidence. The rejection of evolution is not faith based because it does not have any supporting evidence. The issue is the type of evidence that is required. Religions faith requires evidence of the spirit. Scientific faith requires imperical data. You are trying to imply that evolution has as much evidence as the spirit world. You are distorting the definitions to suite your notions.

 

Again you have no idea what my model is nor what evidence I have for it.  Talk about distortions I implied nothing about the spirit world that is your straw man.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Why the diversion and why the reluctance to admit to the faith inherent in your theory.  Since nobody here was there when it occurred any theory presented contains some measure of faith.

I refer you to post 371. Now I will also admit to a religious type faith that God didn't fake the evidence for Evolution just to try my faith. I don't believe in that kind of God.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Again you have no idea what my model is nor what evidence I have for it.  Talk about distortions I implied nothing about the spirit world that is your straw man.

We don't know what it is because you won't tell us. I have just two questions for your model though. Why do artic and antartic fish have different antifreeze in their blood? We know that each type works equally well in either environment. Also, why do old world monkeys who developed trichromatic vision have the gene on a different chromosome than the new world monkeys that have this trait? Just two teeny questions for your theory.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Not sure what you are asking for. Say it again please

It would seem that you think that the theory of evolution and whatever creationist model you subscribe to are on equal footing - i.e. "a hope for things that are not seen..." Given this your model of creation must be equally capable of describing everything I laid out in the post you responded to (which was not an exhaustive list). So what is your creation model?

[ERayR]

You are the one playing with diversions. What is your theory.

 

Sorry but this thread is not about my theory.

[ERayR]

I refer you to post 371. Now I will also admit to a religious type faith that God didn't fake the evidence for Evolution just to try my faith. I don't believe in that kind of God.

 

Please note I did not mention God.  My question was and still is:  Why is it so difficult for believers of macro-evolution to admit to an element of faith in their conclusions. 

[jkwilliams]

Sorry but this thread is not about my theory.

 

I think this is the problem with ID: there really isn't a model. It's about trying to debunk evolutionary theory, not about promoting a different model. And for the record, I believe ID proponents haven't done much to make a dent in evolutionary theory.

[ERayR]

We don't know what it is because you won't tell us. I have just two questions for your model though. Why do artic and antartic fish have different antifreeze in their blood? We know that each type works equally well in either environment. Also, why do old world monkeys who developed trichromatic vision have the gene on a different chromosome than the new world monkeys that have this trait? Just two teeny questions for your theory.

 

Sorry but this thread is not about my theory. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Please note I did not mention God. My question was and still is: Why is it so difficult for believers of macro-evolution to admit to an element of faith in their conclusions.

Asked and answered several times.

Edited September 27, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ERayR]

I think this is the problem with ID: there really isn't a model. It's about trying to debunk evolutionary theory, not about promoting a different model. And for the record, I believe ID proponents haven't done much to make a dent in evolutionary theory.

 

 

I think this is the problem with ID: there really isn't a model. It's about trying to debunk evolutionary theory, not about promoting a different model. And for the record, I believe ID proponents haven't done much to make a dent in evolutionary theory.

 

My question was and still is:  Why is it so difficult for believers of macro-evolution to admit to an element of faith in their conclusions.

 

Just for the record:  You want me to present a cogent alternate theory on a message board in 10 minutes or less that refutes macro-evolution in all its minute details when it has taken over 100 years and literally thousands of volumes of print to develop macro-evolution to the point it is.

 

As for ID models don't fool yourself there are several models out there, some better than others.

 

Just for the record I don't believe in any of them.  All I have seen are only attempts to make Macro-evolution palatable to creationists.

 

As a good friend of mine once said:  How do we know all this isn't just one big cosmic college experiment.

Edited September 27, 2013 by ERayR

[Freedom]

My question was and still is:  Why is it so difficult for believers of macro-evolution to admit to an element of faith in their conclusions.

 

 

Because, according to the biblical definition you rely on, it is not based on faith. It is based on knowledge. Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things no seen. Evolution is seen so based on this definition the theory of evolution does not require faith. We can observe evolution, both at the micro and macro level. We can even duplicate it in a laboratory. If you want to take a very broad definition of faith, then it would apply to everything. We have faith that cutting our hand open will hurt, that brushing our teeth will prevent cavities, that drinking water will keep us alive. The problem is, these actions are not based on evidence not seen. We have absolute proof that these actions will produce the expected result because the data can be seen.  

[ERayR]

Why do artic and antartic fish have different antifreeze in their blood? We know that each type works equally well in either environment. Also, why do old world monkeys who developed trichromatic vision have the gene on a different chromosome than the new world monkeys that have this trait? Just two teeny questions for your theory.

 

Are the arctic and antarctic fish still fish? Are the monkeys still monkeys?  I have never argued against micro-evolution so unless the fish are somehow not fish and your monkeys are somehow not monkeys they are irrelevant.