1. 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!

when I accept evolution do i give up my faith?

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by tarasan, Feb 23, 2010.

  1. Autodidact

    Autodidact Intentionally Blank

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    23,259
    Ratings:
    +1,560
    For perhaps the hundredth time, MoF, you cannot debate ToE without learning what it is. Punctuated Equilibrium includes slow changes over long periods of time.

    In any case, are you arguing that punctuated equilibrium ("punk eek") is correct?
     
  2. tarasan

    tarasan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,006
    Ratings:
    +108
    sure thingy man ill see u tommorow, and yes im a little aware of them, but most that athiest give to me are pathetic attempts at best i assumed u had better







    hmmm that isnt so certian if u dig into the language of it, about the whole generation/race thing, but ill be interested to see how u take the contradictions XD
     
  3. Man of Faith

    Man of Faith Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,423
    Ratings:
    +89
    Punctuated Equilibrium is eovlution in rare rapid events, not long slow changes.
     
  4. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    54,254
    Ratings:
    +13,002
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    Not really.

    What punctuated equilibrium says is that evolution (i.e. the mechanisms of random mutation, inheritance and natural selection) is always occurring, but the longer an environment is stable, the less likely it will be that any given mutation will be beneficial, so species will tend to be fairly stable as well. It also says that when an environment undergoes a major change, this will disrupt what is "optimal" and it will be more likely that mutations will be beneficial, which causes change.

    This doesn't mean that evolution doesn't occur at all in those long, steady periods, just that the rate of genetic change in species will be less.

    Also, keep in mind that the "punctuations" of punctuated equilibria can take millions of years.
     
  5. Autodidact

    Autodidact Intentionally Blank

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    23,259
    Ratings:
    +1,560
    The rare rapid events ARE long slow changes. "Rapid" is a comparative term, still painfully slow and taking hundreds of generations.

    So, are you endorsing punk eek or rejecting it?
     
  6. tarasan

    tarasan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,006
    Ratings:
    +108
    Im not arguing but just for general knowledge but how long does it take to get from an omeba to us? i could look it up on google but this window is up and i be lazy to move my mouse.
     
  7. sonofskeptish

    sonofskeptish It is what it is

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    825
    Ratings:
    +235
    If ones creationist beliefs are "young earth" in nature, and those beliefs are a mandatory foundation of ones faith, and one refuses to question ones faith (making it exempt from critisizm), then regardless of reality, one is unable/unwilling to believe the fact of evolution.

    In other words, when you accept certain faith-based beliefs as truths, you must give up your ability to believe in rationally-based things like evolution. Your supernatural world view trumps all natural world views, regardless of missing or contradicting facts, evidence or logic.

    Thankfully, many religious people are unwilling to completely check their brains at the church door, and do place some value on reality, and for them, faith and evolution can co-exist in a modern, "adjusted" faith-based world view which also accepts reality-based explanations like evolution. ;)
     
    #67 sonofskeptish, Feb 24, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2010
  8. Autodidact

    Autodidact Intentionally Blank

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    23,259
    Ratings:
    +1,560
    Well, not an amoeba exactly, but from the earliest unicellular life, around 3 billion years. Here's a cool graphic; we show up in that top little piece only.

    [​IMG]

    Here's another; again, we're at the tippy top there.

    [​IMG]

    and a nice simple one:

    [​IMG]
     
  9. RedOne77

    RedOne77 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    461
    Ratings:
    +39
    I always find it funny when evolutionists get their own facts wrong. I know this is a relatively minor detail in the discussion, but I thought I'd point it out. The "earliest" life known is cyanobacteria dated to 3.5 billion years; not 3 or 3.3Ga.

    From Fossil Record of the Cyanobacteria

    "The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old."
     
  10. Gunfingers

    Gunfingers Happiness Incarnate

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,357
    Ratings:
    +135
    Do you have a larger version of those by any chance?
    I think she covered that by saying "around", rather than "exactly".
     
  11. tumbleweed41

    tumbleweed41 Resident Liberal Hippie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    20,463
    Ratings:
    +1,335
    Funny indeed.
    Of course there is a huge difference between leaving off the .5 in the 3.5 billion years ago estimate for the earliest life and the psudoscientific claim of life emerging only 5,700 to 10,000 years ago.
     
  12. Autodidact

    Autodidact Intentionally Blank

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    23,259
    Ratings:
    +1,560
    Hence the word "around."
     
  13. Autodidact

    Autodidact Intentionally Blank

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    23,259
    Ratings:
    +1,560
    Not to hand. Let us know if you find any.
     
  14. RedOne77

    RedOne77 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    461
    Ratings:
    +39
    :thud: My reading comprehension is falling by the minute.
     
  15. Autodidact

    Autodidact Intentionally Blank

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    23,259
    Ratings:
    +1,560
    RedOne--Don't you owe us some answers to outstanding questions, including a definition of a "kind?"

    (although I may be confusing my threads)
     
  16. RedOne77

    RedOne77 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    461
    Ratings:
    +39
    You are right that I have yet to answer that question.

    I'm not sure which thread that is in either, at this point they are all jumbled up in my head.

    Since I assume everyone will read this I'll just give my one and a half cents on the word "kind" here. I don't deny speciation, and I wouldn't deny populations evolving into different genus's if you can show it. As I'm sure most of you know, the concept of "species" in the evolutionary world view is the only significant taxonomic rank, all others are merely for our/scientists convenience. While taxonomy may be objective, it is only a human conception, and thus open for revisions. The word "kind" is seen in the Bible, states that kinds only produce their own kind. It used to be thought that a "kind" was equivalent to species, as species is the Latin for kind. Since then new data has emerged showing speciation, and so the term kind was revised. Unfortunately there has been no clear consensus where exactly kind falls on the taxonomic rank system, some snay genus while others say family and yet others want to say order or sub-order and so forth. The problem with this goes back to the fact all these taxonomic ranks are human conceptions, so saying that kind is equivalent to X taxonomic rank is superficial. For example, Chimps are a different genus than humans right now, but there is talk about changing it to homo. If kind is equal to genus, than that poses some problems. I'm not trying to say that change to models are bad, but to equate kind to a taxonomic rank is pointless. You can think of kind as a taxonomic rank, showing that each animal is descendant from their original ancestor, and all organisms from that ancestor belong to the same kind. Do I know exactly where each species falls? No, and as to date I don't think anyone does or ever has. I'm no taxonomist (big surprise, I know), but I see kind near the genus or family level, but I just don't know.
     
  17. tarasan

    tarasan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,006
    Ratings:
    +108
    see thats just my ignorance thanks man XD
     
  18. Gunfingers

    Gunfingers Happiness Incarnate

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,357
    Ratings:
    +135
    You define kind yourself in the post, by saying organisms reproduce after their own kind. In other words organisms are of the same kind if they are able to mate with eachother and produce offspring.

    If accurate this has a few problems
    1) There are cases where members of population A can reproduce with population B, and population B can reproduce with population C, but population A cannot reproduce with population C. This would make A the same kind as B, B the same kind as C, but A and C not the same kind. Link
    2) Not all organisms reproduce with another organism. Bacteria simply divide, making it impossible to know if they can reproduce with one another.
    3) The "able to reproduce" line has been crossed. Here is an example of it being done under lab conditions with fruit flies.
     
  19. RedOne77

    RedOne77 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    461
    Ratings:
    +39
    No, some organisms in the same kind can't interbreed. Kind isn't so much defined as the ability to reproduce, it is more about common ancestry.

    Ring species are in the same kind.

    Again, it isn't about being able to reproduce, it is about common ancestry. In fruit fly speciation, both (or all three if you count the original) species are the same kind. Species and kind are definitely not interchangeable and as you concluded.
     
  20. Gunfingers

    Gunfingers Happiness Incarnate

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,357
    Ratings:
    +135
    In other words kind is an utterly meaningless word, whose scope is whatever it takes for you to be able to say that all evolution takes place within a single baramin? I'm sorry if this comes off as harsh, but you're basically setting it up so you can't ever be wrong. Why not just say that all organisms are in the same kind? Then you would actually be right!
     
Loading...