Do You Believe In Evolution?

[knowsbleed]

Why? Various animals all have similar spinal structures as well. Could it possibly be that one reason for such similarities is to serve as evidence of a common Creator?

So, did God sneeze one time and say, "Hey, you can be a jellyfish"?

 

[Carcharodon]

Please don't misquote me. I was referring to the Scriptures in that post, not evolution...and you know it.

Yes, I do.

You missed the point entirely. It doesn't surprise me in the least, though. Here's a hint: you're a hypocrite who doesn't know the first thing about evolution.

Go figure it out. I've got a sun-dial, so I'll be fine with waiting a while.

 

[Carcharodon]

Why? Various animals all have similar spinal structures as well. Could it possibly be that one reason for such similarities is to serve as evidence of a common Creator?

No, because spined creatures actually make up a tiny minority of living creatures on this planet, both in biomass and abundance.

 

[The Battousai]

laws are not better than theories. and mathematical proofs are the realm of mathematicians unsurprisingly. for instance newton's laws of motions are superseeded by the theory of general relativity. which is far more acurate.

I'm not saying that ALL of them are 100% correct - I was just pointing out that the only scientific principles with that accuracy have a mathematical basis (as far as I know).

I don't think its direct causality, but I do think that something allows for the possibility of change and/or allows for changes to take place.

Mutation

Not neccessarily. It depends on the level of God's "tweaking." Guiding a life form gently, slowly from omeba to man isn't the same as deciding whether or not to make that same man rob a liquor store. We can have a level of free will that is outside the workings of God.

I'm sorry, but that's not how evolution works - as I've stated before, it's not a ladder, and it does not denote progress either.

Ladder

Progress

 

[Oddzball]

The reason for this train of thought is quite simple: evolutionists generally insist that evolution could only have come about via the Big Bang. Therefore, it is a core teaching of the evolutionary theory. The two are inextricably bound together.

There you go again, putting words into other people's mouth.

Scientists don't say that. Evolution is a part of Biology. The Big Bang is an area covered by the sciences of Cosmology and Physics.

Scientists are professionals. They don't mix these up. That's done by wanna be authorities, nut jobs, scam artists and others who stand to rake in a big bundle of cash if schools suddenly are obligated to buy Creationist text books.

Regardless of the origin of the planet Earth, once it existed, local phenomena volcanic eruptons, meteorlogical effects, asteroidal impacts etc led life on Earth.

The two topics are distinct separate things. If you're objections are to the Big Bang, you should redirect your efforts there.

But, there are two evolutions being talked about in these discussions.

There is the FACT of Evolution, that is the fossil record showing, consistently that older aged fossils were primitive and less complex than younger ones and that older uncomplicated species were replaced over great spans of time by newer complex ones. Hit up Dictionary.com and look up Evolution. The criteria is met for using that word to describe what we have.

This is NOT OPEN TO DISPUTE. The evidence here is overwhelming and conclusive.

There is also the THEORY of Evolution, by means of natural selection and mutation. "Theory" in science usage is "Explanation backed by Evidence". It is top of the food chain in explanations, scientifically.

Most people hear the word 'theory' and give it a definition akin to what is in the science community at best a 'hypothesis' an explanation without convicning evidence supporting it.

Evolution is as well supported evidentially as Special Relativity, if not more so.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

No, because spined creatures actually make up a tiny minority of living creatures on this planet, both in biomass and abundance.

So, let me get this straight. You're saying that spined beings can't serve as evidence for a common Creator because...there's not enough of them?! That is purely ridiculous. Since when does a certain amount of a species have to exist, before it can serve as evidence for a designer?

 

[The Battousai]

So, let me get this straight. You're saying that spined beings can't serve as evidence for a common Creator because...there's not enough of them?! That is purely ridiculous. Since when does a certain amount of a species have to exist, before it can serve as evidence for a designer?

His point is that there MANY millions more species of other living things on the planet such as bacterium, Fungi, plants, etc. that don't have this supposed "evidence of a creator".

 

[spideyboy_1111]

A lot of folks on these forums know of me, but there's very few (if any) who actually know me. I don't strive to be cruel or vindictive; I simply present my points as best I can. I also recognize that I can't change someone else's perceptions. If I do my best to remain civil, kind, and clear, and folks still take my posts offensively, that's on them. I don't worry about it. I'm polite for the most part, but I don't "walk on eggshells" where important issues are concerned.

I don't know exactly which matters you're talking about, but I do know that very few around here actually understand what I've been trying to say. Many automatically ridicule or insult me because I'm a Christian, not even wanting to comprehend my posts. After a long time, I finally realized that some folks won't listen to anything, and it's often best to avoid those people. I answer questions to the best of my ability, but I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything...only God has that market cornered.

No one is attacking you because your Christian, they are attacking you because of how ignorant, intolerant, hateful, and blind you come off as. There plenty of Christians on here who've attacked you as well. You only see in black and white, when the bible is VERY grey

 

[spideyboy_1111]

In my opinion, a Christian accepts the entire Bible as absolute truth, period. He or she doesn't have to understand or even like all of it (God knows I don't), but they do have to accept it as fact. The whole truth is that while the Scriptures were transcribed and organized by the early church, their content and message is entirely of God.

The problem with how your thinking is literal truth. You can still believe in the bible 100% and follow it correctly, but it depends on your view. A literal point of view looks at the book as a history book as if documented fact, where the majority (and more intelligent) view it as metaphorical. The bible, like most religions is full of symbolism, parables, and myths that teach morals, life lessons and explain the unexplained. Every culture has a range of creation myths, and Christianity actually borrowed a few and "tweaked" them from other cultures. The problem with Christians like you, view every story as fact, you put yourself on the "frontline" as a "warrior for god" anyone who isn't christian you believe is going to hell, you refuse to accept your god as a loving person, but a vengeful non-tolerant deity. You refuse to believe god loves everyone, and feel that those who do not agree with you, even damn your kind to hell.

All and all, im just saying, learn how to view other theories. It's ok to question, whether you choose to accept things or not is your decision, but got will still love you either way.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

No one is attacking you because your Christian, they are attacking you because of how ignorant, intolerant, hateful, and blind you come off as. There plenty of Christians on here who've attacked you as well. You only see in black and white, when the Bible is VERY grey

The world system is gray. Human motives and opinions are gray. But right and wrong were not designed to be gray, and God is the decider of such things, not us.

 

[Carcharodon]

So, let me get this straight. You're saying that spined beings can't serve as evidence for a common Creator because...there's not enough of them?! That is purely ridiculous. Since when does a certain amount of a species have to exist, before it can serve as evidence for a designer?

Wait for it....

His point is that there MANY millions more species of other living things on the planet such as bacterium, Fungi, plants, etc. that don't have this supposed "evidence of a creator".

Bingo!

MF, for you to use the similarity of spinal structures as evidence of a "common creator" is purely ridiculous because that says nothing of the creatures without backbones...creatures that vastly outnumber vertebrates on this planet. It has far less to do with absolute frequency than relative frequency.

 

[The Battousai]

Wait for it....

Bingo!

MF, for you to use the similarity of spinal structures as evidence of a "common creator" is purely ridiculous because that says nothing of the creatures without backbones...creatures that vastly outnumber vertebrates on this planet. It has far less to do with absolute frequency than relative frequency.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

The world system is gray. Human motives and opinions are gray. But right and wrong were not designed to be gray, and God is the decider of such things, not us.

If god is the decider of such things, then why are you assuming that words written by man are truth? and not corrupted and "gray", there's alot of things in the bible that contradict itself. One in which you still have ignored from my posts. In the bible, it specifically states that jesus did not want building's built in his name, he was tolerant and very accepting of a prostitute (who was probably his wife) yet we have churches, cathedrals, schools, etc in his name... and god is suppose to love and be accepting of a prostitute but not a homosexual? Dude do you not understand how arrogant those 2 things are?

 

[Oddzball]

Like you, I find it much easier to believe that God created the heavens and the Earth than I do the Big Bang theory.

This is a thread diversion. The subject of the thread is Evolution/Biology not The Big Bang/Cosmology.

However, as I recollect my Astronomy courses, in 1924, Edwin Hubble published a paper that proved conclusively that there were galaxies far outside our own, often of greater mass than even our own. From the closer ones precise measurments of mass could be made, size could be made and so on.

Now galaxies tend to come in types and measurements of the nearer ones show a fair degree of consistency between types in terms of size and mass.

Armed with evidence that Galaxy types A are similar to other As and Bs to other Bs and so on, you can put the hypothesis to a test. Atoms release unique spectra of light, Sodium is a convenient element for this btw. It emits two shades of yellow that are close to each other on the spectrum quite brightly and other shades at specific points along the spectrum.

In short, Sodium has a spectral fingerprint. So do Hydrogen, oxygen all the elements in fact.

Moving light sources change color. This is called the Doppler shift. Those moving away at extremely high speeds can even change enough to be a completely different color. Those moving too slowly don't change enough for the eye to notice, but more sophisticated equipment can measure it.

The galaxies that are smaller in appearacne would have to be more distant, IF the observation that local galaxies of that shape are about the same size is correct.

Checking for doppler shift, we find elemental 'fingerprints' and they are mostly redshifted. The exceptions are all close by. The Milky Way Galaxy travels with a cluster of other galaxies and orbit a common point. Some of our neighboring galaxies' orbits are bringing them towards us at present.

The degree of the shift tells us the speed the light source is moving away from us.

So, support is shown. Smaller sized similar galaxies are moving fast from us, the larger sized ones are moving from us slowly. Since there is little able to change the speed of something as big as a galaxy except nearby bigger massed things, the isolated separate galxies have in all likelihood been moving the speed and direction they've been moving at for a long long time.

Now here's the fun part. When you check the speeds and apparent sizes of galaxies the distances as measured by relative visual size and the distances you'd get by assuming the objects started moving away from each other at the same time, match. That is Galaxy A, and it's similar shaped Galaxy B are X light years from us and Y light years away from us respectively. Calculating the speeds A & B have relative to us by their redshifts gets results that confirms the visual measurement estimates of their distance. That is if A is about half as far from us as B is, B's speed away from us is double that of A's.

Conclusion: A and B and the earth were all very close together once upon a time.

And this is consistently found in the measurements being made.

Conclusion: The Universe was once packed together at the same time. It's since been separated by some method that imparted very different velocities ofn various chunks of matter.

That rather strongly suggests an explosion.

However, if wish to dispute this, please start up a new thread. This one is biology.

 

[Bill]

I've previously mentioned that various traditions are man-made, rather than being found in Scripture. I've also noted the symbolism of certain verses (most of them in Daniel and Revelation). That being said, I stand by my conviction that although men transcribed it, the teachings and lessons of the Bible came directly from God...all of them. I don't pretend to know all the "hows" or "whys", but my failure to understand the whole thing doesn't automatically mean it's false. God promised to protect His Word, not mankind's collective opinions about it.

As long as you understand that it's merely a conviction devoid of any merit or evidence supporting it. The below is an example of God's knowledge of science. Perhaps you can provide evidence of such an incident occurring in the present time.

Genesis 30:37-40

37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban.

 

[chaseter]

In my opinion, a Christian accepts the entire Bible as absolute truth, period. He or she doesn't have to understand or even like all of it (God knows I don't), but they do have to accept it as fact. The whole truth is that while the Scriptures were transcribed and organized by the early church, their content and message is entirely of God.

And because of how you interpret the Bible doesn't mean that you are right over someone else who interprets it differently. The Bible isn't a how to manual with precise instructions. It is an example to live by with stories and foreshadowing.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

And because of how you interpret the Bible doesn't mean that you are right over someone else who interprets it differently. The Bible isn't a how to manual with precise instructions. It is an example to live by with stories and foreshadowing.

You sir are a true Christian... if only others could understand.

 

[Bill]

Not neccessarily. It depends on the level of God's "tweaking." Guiding a life form gently, slowly from omeba to man isn't the same as deciding whether or not to make that same man rob a liquor store. We can have a level of free will that is outside the workings of God.

If God is perfect, then why would he need to tweak anything?

 

[The Original Bamfer]

The line separating this thread and this thread is becoming increasingly thinner.

 

[Bubonic]

Ahem...

This thread is DARKSIDED

 

[psychocheeseman]

Firstly, nice post oddzball, very informative, but i got a little confused when you said

as I recollect my Astronomy courses, in 1924...

I was thinking you were way old! please excuse my momentary stupidity

but anyway...

So, let me get this straight. You're saying that spined beings can't serve as evidence for a common Creator because...there's not enough of them?! That is purely ridiculous. Since when does a certain amount of a species have to exist, before it can serve as evidence for a designer?

bout the same time as you demanded a complete fossil record for every animal that has ever existed on this planet...

But in all seriousness Sir, you totally missed the man's point. If spinal Cord similarities were proof of a common creator - much like the brush strokes of an artist, then all things created by that creator would bare the signifying spinal cord....

Similarly, the diversity of life on earth is evidence of evolution - not of a diverse range of creators...

 

[Bill]

I answer questions to the best of my ability, but I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything...only God has that market cornered.

How did the Mesopotamians (Epic of Gilgamesh) know the details of creation, the fall and the flood long before they were given to Moses(before he was even born) and before they actually happened?

I know why, do you?

 

[Majic Walrus]

The line separating this thread and this thread is becoming increasingly thinner.

I concur. This thread is actually just a sub-topic of the aforementioned this thread. Which is actually this thread. Which we are in.

 

[Tally Man]

I've been looking up some stuff on belief in evolution in the U.S. and some of this stuff is pretty interesting. The U.S. lags far behind a large number of countries in terms of belief in evolution. A MSU study the only other nation in which adults were less likely to accept evolution was Turkey. I wonder if we will even get to have a scopes trial round 2 if things keep going the way they are going.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

How did the Mesopotamians know the details of creation, the fall and the flood long before they were given to Moses(before he was even born) and before they actually happened?

I know why, do you?

Whatever you "know", it's faulty at best. Creation was the beginning of everything, so the Mesopotamians couldn't have known about the Fall or the Flood before they happened. They didn't exist yet.