Why do some people NOT understand Evolution?

[Dirty Penguin]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...9-post681.html


Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin
Then what I would suggest is to get a better understanding as to what the TOE says. It is based on the scientific method. Everything we currently know is based on the scientific method. The Influenza Virus evolves. We know this because we can study it and have evidence of its evolutionary path. We know the same for the birds as well as man. We can trace our evolutionary path back beyond the time line given to us by YEC or OEC.

icebuddy
Evolution withing the species does exist. However, Maco-Evolution which is the driving force of Evolutionism has never been seen nor tested by any scientific meathod. Evolutionism (man evolved from single cell over time) has never been witnessed. It goes against the fundamental laws of science itself.

Evolutionism is the apearance of new genetic material at a higher level of organization than existed before. This has never been seen. All Genitic defects are all negative

Evolution is not just "Change", it is an upward Change to a higher level of organization. The Laws of Thermodynamics say otherwise and stand against the Evolution of Man.

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin
But that's you....not me. If I landed on Earth and there was absolutely nothing here but a statue of the President I could "assume" is was made but I could not say that for a "fact" seeing as though I wouldn't have any evidence to substantiate my hypothesis. This is where that "Scientific Method" comes into play in order to determine whether a thing is made or formed naturally. We can show that humans did, in fact, evolve from earlier hominids. Unfortunately this is only disputed by OEC and YEC but they've presented no credible evidence to suggest their hypothesis is to be taken seriously.

icebuddy
The Scientific Method today doesnt have room for God or inteligent maker. Think of it this way, If God does exist, then everything you know about could be dead wrong. Todays science starts off with a bias that God does not exist and explains everything without a creator.

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin
It does not. Just because science can show the existence or evolution of a thing does not mean it has ruled out your god or any other gods or aliens.

icebuddy
science has never shown evidence of evolutionism. They have pastic models of what they would like to find, but have never found. They have made frauds that later where found, but only after the ball got rolling. If you look at everything Evolution has to prove itself today, it has nothing but a philosophical view of what they believe happend. (FAITH = Religion)

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin
Actually this is incorrect. Evolution is about change over time. This is why I said evolution does not rule in favor for or against gods or even aliens. Evolution can only explain the change in life as we know it on this planet. The Scientific Method in conjunction with our understanding of Evolution has lead to countless scientific breakthroughs.

icebuddy
Evolutionism is the claim that natural selection has creative powers. this is a Phisosophical claim made in the name of science. Never would someone like yourself say, "God must of done this". What you are doing is assuming that only nature is real and that God is unreal. You say it doesnt rule out God, but it rules him out of the equasion from the start. What Evolution are you talking about that leads to breakthroughs? Micro Evolution is much different from Macro Evolution. We all believe in changes within a speices, such as skin color and eye color...

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin
The bible is a book that was composed by the hands of men. It can neither serve to prove the existence or non-existence of "God" or any other gods.... One can not use the Bible to prove the Bible. It is an exercise in futility.

icebuddy
How do you sugest one proves the existance of God? Many will say man created God, but the truth is God created man. one would have to assume way too much and make claims that go agaisnt scientific laws themself to believe in the Evolution of man from nothing...

[Odion]

Some people don't have a clue of how evolution comes to pass. Some people seem to think evolution more or less happens overnight, like there's massive periods where nothing evolves, and then one day they give birth to something massively different.

Even some atheists will say something about our ancestors being monkeys, for some reason.


Overall, I guess it's just ignorance of how it happens, and in some cases, plain denial.

My two cents.

[Gunfingers]

It's an easy question to answer. He's reciting, almost verbatim, the same BS used by Kent Hovind, James Comeron, and all the other "great" YEC writers. That is why some people do not understand evolution: because they have been taught a pack of lies.

[Man of Faith]

What we should see if evolution were true gets confused with what we evolutionists teach. All an evolutionist has to say is what we see is what we expect with evolution and what it teaches. For example when a creationist says there are no gator ducks, what they are actually saying is we should see more plasticity in the lab than we do if evolution were true. When an evolutionist says evolution doesn't say we should have gator ducks, what they are saying is we can predict what we should get with evolution. But they don't really know that, they only have the life forms that we can see so they use those life forms to say that is what we should get. If evolution was to do over many times, who is to say we wouldn't have gator ducks or something to that likeness. Are we guaranteed to get humans everytime evolution happens over billions of years? There is an order and apparent design to life forms that screams creator.

[PolyHedral]

No, of course not. You will almost certainly not get humans if you were to rerun evolution. But you're almost certainly not get the lottery numbers 1 4 23 38 42 49, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible, or that someone is fixing the lottery.

And evolution does not teach anything. It predicts.

[Gunfingers]

Originally Posted by Man of Faith

What we should see if evolution were true gets confused with what we evolutionists teach. All an evolutionist has to say is what we see is what we expect with evolution and what it teaches.

Evolutionary theory has also predicted things that had not been observed at the time. Darwin predicted the existence of something like DNA in cells. Evolutionary theory predicts things like evolution of disease, which is why you have to get a flu shot every year, rather than only once. Evolution also predicts nested hierarchies, a prediction strengthened every time a new species is discovered.

Originally Posted by Man of Faith

For example when a creationist says there are no gator ducks, what they are actually saying is we should see more plasticity in the lab than we do if evolution were true.

We should see more than entirely new species created over the span of a few dozen generations, as we often do with experiments conducted with bacteria?

Originally Posted by Man of Faith

When an evolutionist says evolution doesn't say we should have gator ducks, what they are saying is we can predict what we should get with evolution. But they don't really know that, they only have the life forms that we can see so they use those life forms to say that is what we should get. If evolution was to do over many times, who is to say we wouldn't have gator ducks or something to that likeness. Are we guaranteed to get humans everytime evolution happens over billions of years?

In theory it's possible to produce a crocoduck, in much the same way it's possible for the molecules in the air around my desk to all suddenly transform into Zooey Deschanel, who will then my sweet, passionate, and frankly rather degrading love to me. Which is to say not very likely. See evolution predicts phylogenetics. Crocodiles and Ducks are part of two very distinct clades, and their most recent common ancestor shared little in common with them as they are now. It is not likely that either crocodiles or ducks will begin developing into anything like the other, so the emergence of a crocoduck is highly improbable. However, the existence of organisms that show traits associated with more than one population, ie transitional organisms, are not unheard of. The best example is the platypus, which has many attributes of mammals, but also many attributes of reptiles.

[Noaidi]

Originally Posted by Man of Faith

If evolution was to do over many times, who is to say we wouldn't have gator ducks or something to that likeness. Are we guaranteed to get humans everytime evolution happens over billions of years? There is an order and apparent design to life forms that screams creator.

If evolution were to start again, would we get humans everytime? Probably not. If evolution was replayed to the current time, we would have a suite of entirely different organisms, all based on an ecology different from what we see and have seen.

But your question doesn't address people's lack of understanding of evolution. What do you understand by the term 'evolution'?

[ninerbuff]

We had dinosaurs first. Then came us. If we were wiped out by an asteroid or other catastrophe, the Earth would start over again with evolution.

[Walkntune]

Evolutionary theory has also predicted things that had not been observed at the time. Darwin predicted the existence of something like DNA in cells. Evolutionary theory predicts things like evolution of disease, which is why you have to get a flu shot every year, rather than only once. Evolution also predicts nested hierarchies, a prediction strengthened every time a new species is discovered.

Interesting view you have with the evolution of disease.
I wouldn't be so quick to assume man is keeping up with the evolution of disease.In fact I think man is creating a resistance that is causing the evolution of disease.
Once again science looking at effects instead of actual causes.Same idea as seeing energy as the product of materialism instead of vice versa.Its interesting though how energy is never created or destroyed, not materialism?????I believe if in the sciences there was a better grasp of how energy operated they would realise and understand why disease is evolving to try and destroy or actually survive off of humans or other life forms.Energy is first cause, not materialism.Our resistance alters its state as an energy form.
Same reason people don't understand evolution. It is all based off of the materialistic point of view and not the point of view of energy being deterministic to continue against all resistance.Why????
Once again, energy is never created or destroyed and is determined to continue.

[tomato1236]

Why does anybody not understand anything?