TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Such as... evolution theory. The theory of biology. There's only one such theory.
That species diversify over time by the process of reproduction with modification followed by natural selection.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution My ToE
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Such as... evolution theory. The theory of biology. There's only one such theory.
That species diversify over time by the process of reproduction with modification followed by natural selection.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Not the observations and experience of scientists.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Not of they lead to creationist propaganda sites where they just plain lie about the science.
Here's a better link to part of a lecture of an actual evolutionary biologists. A christian evolutionary biologist, for that matter:
It's only 4 minutes and 22 seconds. Perhaps you should watch it.
Since neither the agent nor the means have been intelligibly defined, they necessarily proceeded to their achievements regardless.
Since the question is, "How is it that there are so many species?" the answer "God did it" (as I pointed out) is not an explanation at all, ─ unless and until we have a coherent description of how God did it.
None of those problems are entailed with the theory of evolution.
I'm trying to think of a polite way of pointing out that ALL of the discovering has been done by science, and NOTHING to speak of by religion. You'll have noticed that geology, biology, genetics, evolution, radio- and carbon-dating aren't taught as such either in Sunday schools or seminaries.
Do you mean that "intelligent design" is a variant form of evolution? It took a flogging at the Dover trial (2005) from which it never recovered ─ for example, having known since 2001 or earlier that his ideas failed to take exaptation into account, Behe still hasn't solved the problem, and the number of credible examples of "irreducible complexity" continues to be precisely zero.
And even were it credible, it'd be no more about evolution than selective breeding or GM seeds are.
So if that's what you had in mind, we'll have to agree to differ rather strongly.
Or were you referring to something else?
ecco
Veteran Member
"Poofed" is precisely all that fundamentalists need as a detailed explanation of how. And God said, "Let there be light," and [poof] there was light.
Realistically, they do not like the word "poofed", but that's beside the point.
Do you really think God is going to tell Moses any detail to confuse the masses? Does God really need to go into detail as to how He removed the rib from Adam and transformed it into Eve? If one thinks about it, one would have to wonder why He even needed a rib from Adam. Why not just use more of the dirt He used for Adam.
If you really want to get into the how and what and why, keep in mind that these are oral tales that had been around for many years before being written down.
At some earlier time during a campfire session of the little tribe, the following dialogue took place:
Youngster: Oh Great Wise Elder, why do dogs and mules have bones in their penises and we don't?
Great Wise Elder: Well, youngun, after God made FirstMan He felt FirstMan needed a mate. So, He took the bone from FirstMan's penis and He used it to create FirstWoman.
The silly rib story was just a clean-up.
ecco
Veteran Member
It is not for me, a mere mortal to bestow forgiveness. Only the Lord can forgive.
ecco
Veteran Member
We know what strong winds do to ships.
However, fundamentalists carefully avoid acknowledging what strong winds do to ships. If they were to recognize what strong winds do to ships they would have to acknowledge that the Ark could not have survived.
ecco
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The mere fact that ice floats refutes the Ark myth.
Though one of my favorite Ark refutation arguments is the fact that you do not have to worry about waking up in a seedy motel bathtub filled with ice and missing a kidney refutes the Ark myth.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Ah, so now you actually think you're being a comedian.
It's so utterly bizarre that you ignore the science that clearly has myriads of evidence for the evolution of life forms, and yet you blindly believe in the Creation accounts as being real historical events.
No surprise.
BTW, if one actually follows Jesus' teachings, one must meet in "community" (i.e.: "church"-- "ecclesia" in Koine Greek) per what's mandated in the Gospel, and "church" shows up 109 times there.
ecco
Veteran Member
Stop hedging. By now we all know that you are a Christian Fundamentalist.
By stating that God could defy the laws of nature you are clearing the way for all the fantastical stuff found in Genesis - Adam&Eve, angels, devils, Giants mating with humans, people appearing out of nowhere, the unsinkable ark and the undetected Flood.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Thanks, and I love the song based on that prayer. Ever hear it?
ecco
Veteran Member
I am sure you do not understand the scientific use of the word "assumptions" any more than you understand the scienific use of the word "theory".
Nevertheless, let's see if you even understand the "Assumptions of Radiometric Dating". First, you need to read them. Then you can try to explain, in your own words, what they mean. And then you need to try to explain why those assumptions are bad.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Creationists tend to ignore scientific language when they agree with something. It is when they disagree that they play this silly and dishonest game.
In a nutshell, scientists do not have to reinvent the wheel in every experiment. They "assume" that previous well supported discoveries are correct. In other words they assume that gravity is a thing.
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.
I will provide all the evidence to support this... what I consider, to be fact.... starting from the OP.
I want it to be clear that I am referring specifically to the part of the theory stated in red - the second concept of the theory of evolution discussed in this video.
Please state if you disagree with any of the videos.
One thing I disagree with, in this video, is that while humans select, which "species" they will allow to reproduce, while selectively removing those less desirable.
Does natural selection do the same?
The narrator said....
1) Nature carefully decides which trait to keep.
2) Positive changes add up over multiple generations.
3) Negative traits are quickly discarded.
#1
It's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.
"Need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.
Thus it does not carefully decide.
Although I think this article is a bit misleading, here is the source.
If "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic", how does selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way?
#2
How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?
The cabbage somehow becomes a giant every generation, yet no mention of anything new being introduced is made. So there are both positive and negative changes. The farmer is selectively rooting out the negative or less desirable - obviously because he doesn't 'want' them.
That's not how natural selection works.
#3
Some tend to think of natural selection as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress, but this is not what natural selection is like at all.
Natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation. You don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.
Assumptions
I find it interesting that whenever someone points out to evolution believers that scientists make assumptions, and guesses, they try to deny it. They never admit that it is true. Yet, whenever there is a new study, and finding, the scientists themselves are quick to say, the previous thought, or accepted conclusion was an assumption. Take for example...
Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.
....
Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators, Dr Tan postulated that the variety of anti-predator strategies in leaf beetles that she has found may explain their successful spread into a variety of habitats.
It's useful to see that of course evolution could be either God's perfect design -- and perfectly fitting the words of Genesis chapter 1 -- (God created all that is, not only some things, thus He created physics of course, thus chemistry, and all laws of nature, ergo, thus all that flows out of all those laws of nature) --
Unfolding like a flower from a seed, naturally, by perfect design, from the start.
....perhaps this is a good place to pause, instead of presenting the 2nd possibility mentioned, as I find I can go on too long often. (and anyway, this is the 1 of the 2 that appears more likely to me, though the other is well plausible, if not more so in a way)
So, just from this one (the other is like in this way), one can see the argument of evolution against creation is a chimera in this view. Actually to me, it seems too often as if those not accepting God would have created the laws of nature, and thus all we see, it's as if they don't have much faith in God. I mean, it's my personal reaction. Ok, sorry. Perhaps they have plenty of faith, but have put part of it into a mere intellectual theory they are investing in. What I'm saying in a way: they put too much faith into their own thinking. They are not being skeptical enough about their own thinking. (The Bible says to be a different way, not to "lean on one's own understanding" that way.)
Last edited:
Evolution isn't an origin of life theory. So, the actual argument of the creationists should be abiogenesis (natural causes) vs creationism (many, many versions).
Life could be perpetual and have always existed, unchanged. This doesn't fit what we know through science or match up with doctrines of several of the major world religions, but it is an option. A variant of this, with life as perpetual, but changing, fits some of what we know, but is still not fully compatible with evidence or creed.
I am unsure how to place something like reincarnation, except that it isn't a testable hypothesis anymore than divine creation is.
The real answer, so far, is that we do not know how life arose. There are a myriad of belief-based versions founded on faith and have no evidence. That life has a supernatural origin cannot be ruled out on testing. Within science a number of hypotheses for angiogenesis have been formulated based on existing evidence and knowlege, but not enough evidence exists for any of these to be fully tested. The field is reasonably young and data in support of angiogenesis is being accumulated. Some major advances have also occurred in the form of proto cells, artificial genomes and auto-catalysis chemistry. It is still a very open question and the possibility exists that we may never know, but the search goes on as it should.
Even if the origin of life is found to be by natural causes, this does not eliminate the existence of God for those adhering to Abrahamic traditions. It does throw a wrench into the views of fundamentalist versions that demand that holy books be seen as infallible, immutable and literal. But that view is ripe with so many other problems anyway.
From the evidence, we have a pretty good estimate of the age of the Earth, and can see that there is a point in the past when no life existed. Then about 3.5 billion years ago life appears. All the subsequent evidence indicates that once life came to be, it evolved over time.
This creationism by default concept is a detail I left out, but an important one to reiterate and knock down.
ecco
Veteran Member
It's quite clear from your posts that you were being disingenuous when you stated:
Creationists have their own assumptions too. In point of fact, that is all the versions of creationism have is assumptions.
The main difference being that scientific assumptions can be tested.
ecco
Veteran Member
Why do you think the ramblings of...
James "Jim" Warner Wallace is an American homicide detective and Christian apologist. Wallace is a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Biola University in La Mirada
...would have any bearing on anything?