Why evolution is true
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#690 Jun 24, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Just to clarify, in case of any possible confusion, I think the account of Genesis relating to the Sons of God, daughters of men, giants, men of renown, is not a myth or fable. I believe it was very real. I just don't believe in the human-demon hybrid concept.
.
1. Some Xtians would condemn you for not believing that hybrid. Its an all in or you're out thing, re; the Bible.

“Jesus is Lord”

Since: Aug 11

Greenwood, Indiana

#691 Jun 24, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
There is on problem with your comment, preacherman. You do know what you are saying about things.
God bless you.
AMEN
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#692 Jun 24, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. It's a bit of a "loaded dice" affair because all one has to claim is that the book is not a "bashing book". But to bring a 'counter' perspective to the 'critique' of religion, no matter how confined within the book, is hit with the "we have to keep religion 'out' of public schools".
I also understand that it's not a religious "bashing" book. That's not really the problem.
2. I understand, and believe it or not, it's not the book being required reading at times that I take issue with. It's the prohibiting of giving a 'counter' view in public schools. And again, the go-to-man will always be "we have to keep religion 'out' of public schools". It's a "double-standard". They can't claim that they are both promoting 'critical thinking', and at the same time breaking their own rules of keeping religion 'out' of public schools when they bring it 'in' in the guise of 'critical thinking'.
I remember calling into a talk-show where the host claimed he wanted an open-discussion on claims that a pastor made concerning UFO's being a Satanic deception. What he really wanted was the discussion to take the route that the proposed notion by this pastor was narrow-minded. He also stipulated that Bible verses were not allowed to be used on air (loaded dice/double standard). When I got on the air, needless to say, I wasn't allowed to say much or stay on very long. Callers that promoted the idea that UFOs/aliens were really inter-planetary travelers seemed to gain broader favor.
I understand these things, and that's how the media operates. I'm using this example though to convey a point.
But its apples and screwdrivers. a book that is not discussing religion in any real sense is NOT bringing Religion into the classroom.

That by extension some of the beliefs refuted in this Book, might be a few Xtian ones, is well kinda irrelevant.

As for the talk show example, if people were calling into a Xtian discussion to extort their ideas that Jesus was really an alien, or perhaps a wise-magical-man from the Northern climes (hence his blondish, blue-eyed portrayals) how much tolerance would there be for that ???

What might be more interesting is; Why do you think Xtians have the right to infuse their beliefs onto and into every thing they can find??? And others cant say enough is enough...?

Also, if Xtians cant support their POV's without the Bible, then they cant really support their claims, now can they...?
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#693 Jun 24, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>Its funny to me how Modern American Xtians believe/think they are not expected to conform to a "contemporary change of thought" - yet the history of Xtianity is rife with such things.

When did the line of no more pragmatic change get, 1. marked in stone, 2. made doctrine?

If it had not been for the changes towards and acceptance of contemporary thought, some of the leaps in civilized/societal morality, that Xtians always take way too much credit for, would have never taken place, or been seriously stalled out...

Slavery comes immediately mind. Its evil was a contemporary POV of the times, and Xtianity for the most part embraced it...outside of the obvious pocket of the Southern States...

Most if not all the changes made to Xtianity - the Reformation is another example, are directly due to an acceptance of contemporary thought.

Basically, as things now stand in American Fundamentalist, and Evangelical Xtianity, those factions are fighting the historical record of changes.

History will roll-over this resistant block who believe that Xtianity is not to evolve and not be pragmatic...and from that future POV, most Xtians will look back with disgust - as do most Xtians now, and call you all a bunch a unTrue Xtians. Intent on worshiping wispy laws and rules of worship, and not the true Spirit of Jesus...
Job, I dont want you to miss this post, so I'm bumping it up...

What say you?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#694 Jun 24, 2013
Job has a job.

He's busy at the moment. As are we all (sort of)?

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#695 Jun 24, 2013
ThePreacherman01 wrote:
The only thing this thread shows is a lot of hot air. The only one on here that is telling the truth is the Christian's, the rest is nothing but a joke FACT.....
The Christian's? The Christian's WHAT, you moron?

You can;t tel the difference between the possessive form of a word and the plural form, but you want us to respect your opinions?

You suck at English. We're smarter than you. Our opinions are more likely to be valid, therefore, than yours.

Grow a brain and try again later. Otherwise we'll have no choice but to dismiss your arguments out of hand and continue to laugh at your stupidity.

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#696 Jun 24, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about.
New species equals evolution, period.
Evolution doesn't mean a cat coming out of a dog, or a fox magically sprouting up out of a bacteria.
Really? transspeciation has never been observed, only subspeciation...which is always within its kind...

Hey, you're the ones touting to be related to monkeys, not me...

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#697 Jun 24, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example of evolution over a short time span is insects developing a resistance to pesticides. Even creationists accept this as an observation of microevolution. So how do you observe macroevolution over millions of years?– Through the fossil record of course.
“Anti-evolutionists continue to assert that the fossil record is incomplete and therefore poor evidence for common descent (e.g., Johnson, 1997). In truth, a very large number of intermediate forms have been found in the fossil record...Over 250 species of the extinct order of therapsids (mammal-like reptiles) discovered in recent years have provided evidence of a transition from reptiles to mammals (Lamoureux 36).”– Dr. Robert J. Schneider Ph.D. Berea [Christian] College, Essay V “Evolution for Christians”
“Young earth creationism is anchored in a particular interpretation of Genesis 1-11, one that treats these narratives as straightforwardly historical and scientific....I write with respect and understanding for the moral struggle that YECs [Young Earth Creationists] engage in with modernity. Yet I see this alternative worldview as a tragically misleading one, grounded in what my Christian colleagues and I think are basic mischaracterizations of history, science, and Scripture....By the middle of the nineteenth century pioneer geologists had come to accept that our planet is very old; they and their later successors patiently reconstructed the earth's history from the layers of sedimentary rock (some hundreds of meters thick) and the fossils imbedded in them, and built a geological column (Larson 22-38)....The column has been refined by continual study to provide an accurate relative timescale of what was clearly an earth history that needed to be measured in millions of years. Over the past several decades a set of dating techniques based on the half-life of radioactive elements embedded in the rocks of successive layers has brought precision to the dating. It is clear from this evidence that the earth is about four and one-half billion years old – Dr. Robert J. Schneider Ph.D. Berea [Christian] College, Essay VII “Young Earth Creationism”
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/es...
See, there isn't anyone who disagrees with 'microevolution' because it's all within the same kind...but you still end up with the same kind, ie birds, bacteria, humans, etc...nothing changes...

Fossils are given an age according to their place in the 'column' and how do we know how old the 'column' is? because the fossils are there...sound familiar? "Circular Reasoning"...

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#698 Jun 24, 2013
10uhsee wrote:
This is the problem... we enjoy our modern way of life.
This includes modern medicines and technology.
To believe in the biblical creation story would be like saying everything we have now is a lie. Because they are based on the understandings of evolution and the world we have come to understand because of science and the scientific method.
In short... you have to deny reality so that you can believe you know more of what happens when you die.
Religion is guess work of tribal leaders and a way to keep those tribes under control based on superstitions because of the lack of world knowledge.
Why do you think we have a problem with science including but not limited to modern medicines and technology... evolution is the only science (term used loosely here) based on theory and speculation at best...

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#699 Jun 24, 2013
HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
You definitely are an idiot. You've already established that.
Only an idiot would claim that evolution only happens as micro-evolution, and not macro-evolution, since the very definition of evolution includes both.
You see, moron, evolution takes place on several different time scales. Very simple organisms evolve at fast rates, while very complex organisms evolve at a glacial rate.
Have you ever visited the Grand Canyon? Do you accept the idea that it was formed by the erosion caused, over tens of thousands of years, by the Colorado River? Why would you accept that if it can't be proved? Were you there when it first started to form? Was anyone you know there? Did ANYONE witness the formation of the Grand Canyon from start to finish? No, but only an insane person would deny that it formed over an very long span of time.
How do we know that for sure? Because geologists explained how it happened, using principles of geology that are beyond question.
The same goes for evolution - biologists and other scientists, using fully accepted scientific principles, have explained why and how evolution occurs.
Only an idiot would accept the logic behind the explanation of the formation of the Grand Canyon and reject the very same logic that also explains macro-evolution.
You are, beyond any doubt, an idiot.
That's not name-calling: that's simply stating a fact.
Hey, call me what you want...sticks and stones...

I'm glad you brought that up. Yes, as a matter of fact, I visited the south rim in April...an awesome sight...

So now I need to ask, you stated tens of thousands meaning? Are you hedging towards a short time span? or did you just misstate?

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#700 Jun 25, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
See, there isn't anyone who disagrees with 'microevolution' because it's all within the same kind...but you still end up with the same kind, ie birds, bacteria, humans, etc...nothing changes...
Fossils are given an age according to their place in the 'column' and how do we know how old the 'column' is? because the fossils are there...sound familiar? "Circular Reasoning"...
You have not even read how it works. Getting your information about how science works from a religious website does not help your cause.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#701 Jun 25, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think we have a problem with science including but not limited to modern medicines and technology... evolution is the only science (term used loosely here) based on theory and speculation at best...
No, Nick, that is not correct. Science, including Biology, is based on observation. If God did not want us to examine the universe He created and try to figure out what was going on we would still be living in caves, as fundies, in a sense, still do.

God bless you.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#702 Jun 25, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
See, there isn't anyone who disagrees with 'microevolution' because it's all within the same kind...but you still end up with the same kind, ie birds, bacteria, humans, etc...nothing changes...
Scientists have provided abundant evidence that evolution from one species to another occurs over long time periods in exactly the same way as evolution over short time periods occurs within species. Creationists show no evidence to support their position they childishly claim “does not”.
NDanger wrote:
Fossils are given an age according to their place in the 'column' and how do we know how old the 'column' is? because the fossils are there...sound familiar? "Circular Reasoning"...
Apparently you missed the part about radiometric dating.

“Over the past several decades a set of dating techniques based on the half-life of radioactive elements embedded in the rocks of successive layers has brought precision to the dating.”

Ernest Rutherford was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1908 for his investigations into the natural disintegration of radioactive elements into other elements. Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay into other elements at predictable rates. By knowing the rate of decay (half-life) and comparing the proportions of parent to daughter element in a rock sample the age of the rock can be accurately calculated.

“The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations and they have refined the earlier estimates.…Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating…”- Michael Benton, Ph.D., Vertebrate Paleontologist, American Institute of Biological Sciences
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#703 Jun 25, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? transspeciation has never been observed, only subspeciation...which is always within its kind...
Hey, you're the ones touting to be related to monkeys, not me...
You are trying to mix Christian bullshit with real science. Ain't gonna work.

Give us a SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION of "transspeciation" and "kinds."

Not some BuyBull BS, but real scientific terminology.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#704 Jun 25, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
See, there isn't anyone who disagrees with 'microevolution' because it's all within the same kind...but you still end up with the same kind, ie birds, bacteria, humans, etc...nothing changes...
New species are found all the time, and occasionally observed speciating real time (although not in complex mammals, since that takes a LONG time).

A new species of bacteria, for example, is what you Jesus Freaks would call "macroevolution," and it has been observed in the lab.

Probably wasting my time here with you, troll, right? But anyway...

From one generation to another, a dog always produces a dog. Science would agree with that.

However, that first offspring (call it Generation 1) is always slightly different from its parents, due to the combination of parental genes and to gene mutations.

Now if you followed Generation 1 to Generation 2, 3, 4, 5--- etc. all the way to Generation 1 MILLION, a million years later, you might very well find that the offspring called Generation 1,000,000 is SO different from Generation 1 that science would call it a new and different species and the two species would no longer be able to mate with one another.

THIS is what science says happens in the Theory of Evolution -- not a fish coming out of a rock.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#705 Jun 25, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Fossils are given an age according to their place in the 'column' and how do we know how old the 'column' is? because the fossils are there...sound familiar? "Circular Reasoning"...
It might be if dumb hillbilly "Christian" pastors were the ones out doing the science...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC310.h...

Creationist Claim CC310:

Fossils are used to determine the order and dates of the strata in which they are found. But the fossil order itself is based on the order of strata and the assumption of evolution. Therefore, using fossil progression as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning.

Response:

Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.

Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.

The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution.

Links:

MacRae, Andrew. 1997-1998. Radiometric dating and the geological time scale: Circular reasoning or reliable tools?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#706 Jun 25, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>
Job, I dont want you to miss this post, so I'm bumping it up...
What say you?
I understand your point, and actually 'don't' have any particular argument against it that I can see.

Except that when we're talking about change, it really depends on what exactly you mean.

It really all boils down to whether or not God actually exists. If He does, and is the God represented in the Bible, then that would mean that God does 'not' change (putting aside acts of judgment within the Bible that sometimes are suggested to be a "change of mind"). What God loves, and what God hates, doesn't change. He doesn't loosen up on something He hates (like slavery, divorce, etc.).

A Christian 'always' changes, or at least 'should' change in the direction of 'God's' thoughts. I can't claim that 'always' happens, but that's the general idea. And this would be anyone. No Christian has 'ultimately' arrived. The disciple Peter 'changed' even 'after' He was 'converted' after the death and resurrection of Christ. He thought salvation was only for the Jews, and any idea contrary to that would have been a 'change'. But it 'wasn't' a change at all. The concept of salvation for 'any' and 'all' was not something new. It may have come across as new at first. A new concept, or maybe even a "God changing His mind". But this was not something new in the mind of God, but there was a "change of mind" among Christ's disciples. Maybe some quicker than others.

There are more social changes that occur more corporately within Christianity. This is something that happens when more emphasis is on Christianity, or Christendom than God. Because the United States is relatively free, it's easy for Christians to conform individually to social norms, or even social changes. There seems to always be the Christians who may appear more 'carnal' than others in any given church environment. I would say it's also easy for the Christian realm, or Christendom to conform in certain ways. When the focus centers more on Christianity, Christendom, the Church, than "Christ" Himself, then that Christian corporate environment can actually become merely a "Christian version" of secular society. That being the case, very human negative activities will happen 'within' a church.

One of the problems, if it's really a problem, is that the 'problems' are what stand out. We have posters here who will take a news item of one particular negative event, often involving one individual, and that "individual news item" becomes a post office poster boy. The good things are just not going to get the spotlight. Or, even a publicized good deed by someone who just happens to be a believer, the fact that he/she is a Christian will not be considered relevant.

Now if God 'doesn't' exist, as you believe that He doesn't, it's going to be extremely difficult to relate to what I'm saying. Then it's all just a big mish-mash/free-for-all of thoughts.

What you are confronting is not just Christians, but human beings. And being a human being yourself, it's 'impossible' for you to see/know everything. It's impossible for me to see/know everything, etc.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#707 Jun 25, 2013
Gillette wrote:
Job has a job.
He's busy at the moment. As are we all (sort of)?
This is very true!
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#708 Jun 25, 2013
Punisher wrote:
1. <quoted text>But its apples and screwdrivers. a book that is not discussing religion in any real sense is NOT bringing Religion into the classroom.
That by extension some of the beliefs refuted in this Book, might be a few Xtian ones, is well kinda irrelevant.

As for the talk show example, if people were calling into a Xtian discussion to extort their ideas that Jesus was really an alien, or perhaps a wise-magical-man from the Northern climes (hence his blondish, blue-eyed portrayals) how much tolerance would there be for that ???
What might be more interesting is; Why do you think Xtians have the right to infuse their beliefs onto and into every thing they can find??? And others cant say enough is enough...?
Also, if Xtians cant support their POV's without the Bible, then they cant really support their claims, now can they...?
1. Question 1: Our high school chemistry teacher requires all his students to read Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. It has already caused my son to start questioning everything we hold dear, and last Sunday he refused to go to Church. I have already contacted the Chemistry teacher, but he is adamant about forcing students to read it. What can I do?

http://www.crossroad.to/Q&A/Science/sagan...

First off, I think we can agree that minimal reference in a book does not equal lack of noticeability. Something profound is not going to be drowned out due to minimalization.

Secondly, my example I used is not a "boo-hoo" over a child being forced to being exposed to something counter-Christian. It's something we (Christians) need to/should deal with.

The point is of course that using the notion of comparing apples to screwdrivers is not ultimately going to fly, and that why 'not' allow for the 'counter' view? I assure you, there are people who would be more than happy to give the 'counter-view' to Sagan's proposals.

To me, it's a very "one-sided" affair.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#709 Jun 25, 2013
Divine Buzz wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd be very interested in hearing the evidence you have that makes you believe in "young earth creationism".
First off, I became a believer when I was 21 years of age, and since then, have not been able to escape God, even when I wanted to (there was a time that as a believer that I wanted to do my own thing). So Jesus Christ is as real to me as anything visibly in front of me.

Ever since I was a believer, I've had this strong conviction, as do many believers, that the Bible is the 'infallible' Word Of God. So that of course in itself would naturally lead me into a belief in Biblical Creationism.

That of course doesn't answer the question as to why I'm a "YEC" (as after all I could also have become an Old Earth Creationist).

The reason I'm a YEC is based on both what I've read from Young Earth Creationists who are scientists, and how they relate to 'scripture'.

Now I don't know what your stance is. I don't know if you are an Old Earth Creationist Christian, challenging the YEC view; or a theistic evolutionist, or a non-Christian confronting Creationism in general.

As far as evidence goes (which is what you're really asking), I imagine you are aware of the various arguments 'for' a young earth Creationist 'scientists'. There are of course 'counter-arguments'. And there are counter-arguments to the counter-arguments, and so on.

One of the things that YEC scientists attempt to show evolutionists is how God 'could' have created the universe within a shorter than perceived time-span that fits a scientific frame-work. And quite frankly, this seems to be what some evolution scientists do in reverse. Show creationists how we could have come into existence 'without' God or a creator (thinking Stephen Hawking's statement that he has proven that God is not necessary).

What comes into question by many evolutionists it seems, is the 'practice' among Creationist 'scientists' of placing 'science' in light of Biblical scripture. First off, of course not all Creationist 'scientists' started out as 'Creationists'. Some were evolutionists who changed their view. Secondly, does the practice itself of comparing science with Biblical scripture 'really' out rule Biblical Creationism? And could a strictly 'naturalist' view lead scientists in the wrong direction if they completely ignore what Creationist 'scientists' propose? Is that possible?

Again, I don't know if you're a Christian or not. But any non-Christian I would think, if Christ revealed Himself to them, would have to rethink their position (if they had one to begin with) on Creationism and evolution. Right?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why didn’t God destroy satan from the beginning? 1 min PraiseJesus 19
News Religion, higher education and critical thinking (Aug '15) 1 min KAB 7,292
Cancer took my mom and I'm upset that that happ... 4 min AskDrScientist 12
The New Covenant 7 min AskDrScientist 210
Is Obesity a Sin or Curse from God? 36 min jhnsn d-s 1
Hearing Voices (the supernatural world) 43 min ChristineM 233
Evidence Against God 2 hr Big Al 2,747
Poll Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 2 hr anonymous 4,502
Science and Religion 3 hr Memorial Day Sock 130
More from around the web