Do You Believe In Evolution?

[AndThePickles]

I think there is too much evidence NOT to believe in evolution, but I do think that that same evolution happened under God's guidence and according to his laws when he made the place. I don't see why a person's belief has to be either Creationism or Evolution when the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

This is how I feel, as well. squeekness, I specifically looked for your first post because I just had a feeling you'd think the way I do about this topic! t:

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Thanks for letting me know. Do you mind if I alert my old calculus professor? He may be interested to learn this.

Knock yourself out.

 

[squeekness]

This is how I feel, as well. squeekness, I specifically looked for your first post because I just had a feeling you'd think the way I do about this topic! t:

We do seem to have a lot in common in the way we think about things. :heart:

 

[Bill]

Spare me junior.

I would, but you came back and got even wetter.

Hovind's only lack of credibility is that he is in jail for tax evasive practices. That doesn't take away from the fact that the man has spent more time refuting evolution with research than most "scientists" have spent in their own research.

Kent Hovind has spent a lot of time doing something. Refuting evolution wasn't it. His arguments, however, have been refuted many times over. So much so that his own people want nothing to do with him.

Gish/Morris/Ham filling halls with believers has no bearing whatsoever on the information and evidence put forth in the debates. A large cheering section doesn't have any effect on the facts. Nice try at a demonization though.

Sure it does. It means that Gish, Morris and Ham can spew forth anything they want and not be caught on it because the audience is too ignorant to know better. Why don't you post some of their awesome debate strategies?

Arlo is a Chemical engineer. Funny how you would be so quick to discredit a chemical engineer when EVERYTHING about life can pretty much be broken down to chemical reactions and connections.

So how did he mess up something like the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

And the Big Bang has everythign to do with Evolution. It is the theorized starting point for the process of evolution itself. If you can't grasp that, then you are dumber than a bag of hammers. If you ignore the origin of the process, then how do you embrace the process?

No, that would be some form of abio- or bio-genesis, depending on your slant. You see, the Big Bang is Cosmology, not Biology. It accounts for the origins of the universe. Biologic life came much later. Books are your friend.

Convenient stance you folks take. Anyone who disagrees with your point is in junk science no matter how many degrees or years of study. No matter how smart or studied the person is, if they don't agree then they aren't acceptable scientists. I'll take Hovind, Morris, Behe, Lubenow, Berlinski, Barr, etc over most of the robots who never challenge anything but just repeat the evolution mantras over and over.

Unfortunately, the people repeat the same anti-evolution mantras over and over (except Behe that is, I believe he recanted a lot of his) even though they've been corrected over and over on the same points. And this isn't even about the actual science, it's about their understanding of it.

Did you remember the waders?

 

[Bubonic]

Why does Moviefan's education matter?

I guess people are curious how someone could be this misinformed, maybe spare their own children by avoiding whatever awful schools he was subjected to.

 

[Oddzball]

Fossils are completely unreliable in proving macroevolution, for one reason more than most: it's dead. Fossils cannot be used to prove evolutional theory, because in truth, all you can conclusively prove by looking at a fossil is that it died. You can't prove it had any offspring at all.

I'm sorry, but fossils ARE evidence. Fingerprints and DNA are circumstantial evidence. Definition of Circumstantial evidence comes from the one I was given when I was a juror on a murder trial.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence from which you can infer a conclusion. ie your fingerprints on a table lets one infer you were in the room.

The existence of a corpse lets you infer it was once alive. The existence of multiple types of the same corpse lets you infer: It breeds.

 

[Bill]

I'm sorry, but fossils ARE evidence. Fingerprints and DNA are circumstantial evidence. Definition of Circumstantial evidence comes from the one I was given when I was a juror on a murder trial.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence from which you can infer a conclusion. ie your fingerprints on a table lets one infer you were in the room.

The existence of a corpse lets you infer it was once alive. The existence of multiple types of the same corpse lets you infer: It breeds.

I'll go him one further as the fossils all show minor morphological differences from one version to the next. We don't see these features in the layers below, and we see them improve or transfer to the organisms in the layers above. But we don't see the same creatures in layers far above or below the layers in which they are found. This means that they evolved from the previous version into the subsequent version.

Or, you would have to say that each individual species suddenly appeared and then died out leaving another startling similar organism with beneficial mutations to suddenly appear and then die out, and so on. The former explanation seems much more likely.

Of course this is an extremely simplified version.

 

[Bill]

Now, let me explain this: God is not stupid, and as a race, neither are we. He was brilliant enough to make us in His own image, but sin corrupted our nature, in more ways than one. It's very likely that humans were much more skilled (and had greater insight) thousands of years ago, than we are today. The pyramids of Egypt are just one possible example of how advanced "pre-modern" humans really were.

Interestingly enough, those pyramids were being built before, during and after the timeframe you mentioned for the worldwide flood. Curious that.

If you're referring to the rock layers and such, then answer this: how can upright trees be found, passing through multiple layers, and they're intact? If each rock layer were truly "billions of years old", those trees would've withered away eons ago. for that matter, why is the same type of rock often found in separate layers? Limestone, for example, has been found at different depths, and scientists say, "well, this layer is 50 million years old, and this one is 300 million". They contain the exact same minerals, so how is that feasibly possible?

I exhaustively researched and gave you a link explaining exactly why upright trees were found. Either you didn't read it, or you didn't like the answer. Here is a link, with references, explaining that phenomenon.

Also, the limestone. Limestone is sedimentary(no isotopes to decay), so the dates were arrived at by measuring the igneous samples that bracketed them. See how easy that was?

No, I am coming to the conclusion that the Earth is probably 6,000 years old (give or take a few hundred), based on scientifically provable evidence, in addition to Scripture.

What scientifically provable evidence is that?

 

[Moviefan2k4]

...then don't you think trouts would be a seperate kind since they have rainbow, golden, flathead types? Yet, you bundled them together with all kinds of other fish. See, it'd be nice if some creationists got together and sorted out which animals they want to arbitrarily group together.

The word "kind" in the Biblical context refers to all animals which are clearly of the same type. For example, we have birds, dogs, cats, fish, whales, sharks, horses, etc....but each of these kinds is divided into multiple species. Here's just a few examples, from the modern-day world...

Birds: sparrows, robins, canaries, parrots
Dogs: domestic canines, wolves, coyotes
Cats: housecats, tigers, panthers, bobcats, lions
Fish: trout, bass, catfish, salmon, carp, tuna
Whales: humpback, blue, dolphin, porpoise
Sharks: hammerhead, "great white", tiger, white-tip
Horses: mustangs, zebras, donkeys, mules

Each of these individual groups contains types of animals which share an overwhelming amount of common attributes (even more than the supposed 98.6% match attributed to apes and man). Now, these differences may indicate a common purpose, designer, or even ancestor...but the latter would be bound within each set kind. Any reasonably intelligent eight-year-old kid could tell you at least this much...and they don't have (or need) any degrees to do it.

 

[Bill]

To see just how entertaining Kent Hovind can be, a list of his arguments with refutations. A good read for his acolytes.

 

[Bubonic]

The word "kind" in the Biblical context refers to all animals which are clearly of the same type. For example, we have birds, dogs, cats, fish, whales, sharks, horses, etc....but each of these kinds is divided into multiple species. Here's just a few examples, from the modern-day world...

Birds: sparrows, robins, canaries, parrots
Dogs: domestic canines, wolves, coyotes
Cats: housecats, tigers, panthers, bobcats, lions
Fish: trout, bass, catfish, salmon, carp, tuna
Whales: humpback, blue, dolphin, porpoise
Sharks: hammerhead, "great white", tiger, white-tip
Horses: mustangs, zebras, donkeys, mules

Each of these individual groups contains types of animals which share an overwhelming amount of common attributes (even more than the supposed 98.6% match attributed to apes and man). Now, these differences may indicate a common purpose, designer, or even ancestor...but the latter would be bound within each set kind. Any reasonably intelligent eight-year-old kid could tell you at least this much...and they don't have (or need) any degrees to do it.

You and Linnaeus, two of a kind.

 

[Hotwire]

Examples, please?

10 commandments vs. the book of Leviticus. More specifically, the, "Thou shalt not kill" verus all the thing Leviticus lists that someone should be put to death for.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Any reasonably intelligent eight-year-old kid could tell you at least this much...and they don't have (or need) any degrees to do it.

Oh, so you're 8? Good for you. I didn't start using the internet until I was 13. Kids these days are much more techno-savvy.

 

[Hotwire]

I think there is too much evidence NOT to believe in evolution, but I do think that that same evolution happened under God's guidence and according to his laws when he made the place. I don't see why a person's belief has to be either Creationism or Evolution when the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

I agree with you to a point, Squeek. I feel there is some higher power that created evolution. I have no problem believing that life as we know it was created by something, but I can also believe that the system is advanced enough to adapt and evolve as needed. The problem with Moviefan and this debate is he refuses to accept anything other than the Bible.

 

[Danalys]

The word "kind" in the Biblical context refers to all animals which are clearly of the same type. For example, we have birds, dogs, cats, fish, whales, sharks, horses, etc....but each of these kinds is divided into multiple species. Here's just a few examples, from the modern-day world...

Birds: sparrows, robins, canaries, parrots
Dogs: domestic canines, wolves, coyotes
Cats: housecats, tigers, panthers, bobcats, lions
Fish: trout, bass, catfish, salmon, carp, tuna
Whales: humpback, blue, dolphin, porpoise
Sharks: hammerhead, "great white", tiger, white-tip
Horses: mustangs, zebras, donkeys, mules

Each of these individual groups contains types of animals which share an overwhelming amount of common attributes (even more than the supposed 98.6% match attributed to apes and man). Now, these differences may indicate a common purpose, designer, or even ancestor...but the latter would be bound within each set kind. Any reasonably intelligent eight-year-old kid could tell you at least this much...and they don't have (or need) any degrees to do it.

i'd wager that catfish and trout are more different genetically that man and chimpanzee. altho finding the information to prove this would be a heck of a job.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

What "kind" would a platypus fall in?

 

[spideyboy_1111]

The word "kind" in the Biblical context refers to all animals which are clearly of the same type. For example, we have birds, dogs, cats, fish, whales, sharks, horses, etc....but each of these kinds is divided into multiple species. Here's just a few examples, from the modern-day world...

Birds: sparrows, robins, canaries, parrots
Dogs: domestic canines, wolves, coyotes
Cats: housecats, tigers, panthers, bobcats, lions
Fish: trout, bass, catfish, salmon, carp, tuna
Whales: humpback, blue, dolphin, porpoise
Sharks: hammerhead, "great white", tiger, white-tip
Horses: mustangs, zebras, donkeys, mules

Each of these individual groups contains types of animals which share an overwhelming amount of common attributes (even more than the supposed 98.6% match attributed to apes and man). Now, these differences may indicate a common purpose, designer, or even ancestor...but the latter would be bound within each set kind. Any reasonably intelligent eight-year-old kid could tell you at least this much...and they don't have (or need) any degrees to do it.

Now your just creating your own rules.... please stop while your ahead. No where in the bible does it describe any of that.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

What "kind" would a platypus fall in?

the platypus kind...

 

[Ash J. Williams]

Evolution is a religion?

RUBBISH!

Feel free to inform yourself.


By clicking here.

Moviefan is right, you know. Evolution and atheism kinda go hand in hand and anything that ends in "ism" could be considered a religion. Christianity, on the other hand, is more than a religion -- it's a relationship with God.

 

[Arcturus]

Moviefan is right, you know. Evolution and atheism kinda go hand in hand and anything that ends in "ism" could be considered a religion. Christianity, on the other hand, is more than a religion -- it's a relationship with God.

I respectfully disagree, here is another good link.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Moviefan is right, you know. Evolution and atheism kinda go hand in hand and anything that ends in "ism" could be considered a religion. Christianity, on the other hand, is more than a religion -- it's a relationship with God.

The suffix -ism denotes a distinctive system of beliefs, myth, doctrine or theory that guides a social movement, institution, class or group.

-ism simply just means an Idea, a belief. Not a religion

 

[squeekness]

I agree with you to a point, Squeek. I feel there is some higher power that created evolution. I have no problem believing that life as we know it was created by something, but I can also believe that the system is advanced enough to adapt and evolve as needed. The problem with Moviefan and this debate is he refuses to accept anything other than the Bible.

I can accept that evolution occured with or without the direction of God (though I think he was in fact involved in it to some degree) because no matter what, I still believe He jumpstarted the whole dang thing by causing the Big Bang which (to me) is the machine itself. All the stars and planets operate in the machine according to laws (of math and physics and all that jazz), laws which probably extend right down to any given single celled organism itself. My thoughts on this are very open and broad because I am not a Biblical literalist.

 

[squeekness]

-ism simply just means an Idea, a belief. Not a religion

So Squeekyism or Squeekyanity is a belief too?

 

[Ash J. Williams]

I respectfully disagree, here is another good link.

Posting a link -- yeah, OK. Doesn't do much to support what you believe, though.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Yeah. He should have just made stuff up like you did.