Why the theory of evolution is so important

[MJFlores]

Yes, I know about Meyer. He was one of three, the other two being Dembsky and Campbell, who tried to file depositions at the Dover trial 2005; and who, finding they couldn't do so without facing cross-examination, wet their pants and rushed deep into the high hills.

However the question I asked you is why in nearly 60 years creos have made not one scientific scratch on the theory of evolution. What's the answer? Stupidity? Incompetence? A failure to understand science? Dishonesty? Blind faith?

I look forward to your explanation, free of videos and links, and bible quotes and red herrings and instead addressing the question.

There is nothing to dent about the evolution.
It is a stuff of science fiction

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They say that non-life could not make living things.

An assertion which they couldn't possibly demonstrate or support.
Necessarily an argument from ignorance.

It would take a living thing to make another living thing.

Ditto.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is why my friend, I left the Catholic faith.
We are starting to believe theories when
The Bible says God made the universe in 6 days.

When a book disagrees with the evidence of reality, it's not the evidence of reality that is incorrect.

 

[The Anointed]

How do you Bible-splain the water sandwich and the morning-evening reference before the stars? Also the vegetation before the stars and coming from the land and not the sea?

Not morning then evening mate, but Evening then morning. For out of the darkness came Light, the first generation stars, this occurred on the first creative day.
.
This is the condensed account of creation as recorded in Genesis’.....…”In the beginning God created the universe, and the (heavens, and the earth) were formless and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep and God’s active force was moving on the face of the waters. Then God said let there be light.”

Here is the scientific theory of creation........In the beginning, there was the “BIG BANG” which is said to have spatially separated the supposed infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity, which in my opinion was the White Hole at the end of the Great Abyss [Black Hole] into which the previous universe had descended, this event spewed out a liquid like soup of electromagnetic energy in the trillions and trillions of degrees.

It was from the quantum of that plasma liquid-like electromagnetic energy [Waters] that the earth and all the heavenly bodies would be created, and although, all that the earth was created from, was already there in the beginning, the earth at that time had neither shape or mass, which meant it was formless and void, and no suns had yet come into existence to light up the darkness of the expanding space. But there was momentum within that ever-cooling cosmic cloud of wave particles, which wave particles are the quantum of that liquid like electromagnetic energy, and are not really particles at all as they have zero mass and no electric charge, yet they carry angular and linear momentum.

One would expect, that those wave particles which are the quantum of the liquid like electromagnetic energy, would have continued to expand further and further away from each other in the expansion of the universal building material.

But with the angular momentum of those waves, they collided with each other in nuclear fusion in the creation of the first basic sub-atomic particles. As the universal temperature dropped to some billions of degrees, the dark energy which was the expansion’s acceleration force, began to form into dark matter, hydrogen and helium, with trace quantities of lithium, beryllium, and boron.

As the universe expanded and cooled, more hydrogen molecules were formed, and from these, after some thirty million years of attraction, came the formation of the first gigantic stars, [Massive atomic reactors] in which the heavier elements would form, from which the galaxies would later be created.

And God said, “Let there be light.” Which was not the light from the sun of this minor solar system within our Milky Way galaxy, which solar system would not be created for some nine billion years after those first massive stars that lit up the darkness of the bottomless pit.

Bursting into life and light throughout the primitive universe over an unknown period of time, those first generation stars would have been thousands upon thousands of times as massive as our Sun and millions of times as bright, but each one burned for only a few million years before meeting a violent end, when they exploded out in a brilliant flash before collapsing in upon themselves creating the massive centrally condensed systems called ‘Black Holes,’ in which the greater percentage of their mass was trapped. The first creative day ended as all those gigantic stars collapsed

Those first gigantic stars, from which the galaxies would later be created and which would have been collapsing in upon themselves, and evening descended as the lights of the universe went out, and the black holes devoured each other, and darkness covered the contracting space.

Thus ended the first evening and morning. The first creative day.

 

[Sapiens]

Most of them are dentists and computer engineers. They may be "scientists" but their opinion is all but worthless.

They are not scientists ... they are dentists and computer engineers.

 

[MJFlores]

An assertion which they couldn't possibly demonstrate or support.
Necessarily an argument from ignorance.



Ditto.

Can non life elements mixed together make life?

Can nothing make everything?

If your answer is Yes
Then that is some kind of ....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can non life elements mixed together make life?

I don't know. I think it's quite likely that it can, yes. Considering life is, at bottom, just extreme chemistry. There's nothing going on in our bodies that can't be explained by physics and chemistry.

So I'm not sure why one would assume that physics and chemistry couldn't get it started.

But I don't know. Abiogenesis researchers are working to find out.
Those creationists you like to quote? They don't work to find out. They just like to pretend they already know before even investigating the question (because they dogmatically already believe something that isn't compatible....)

Can nothing make everything?

I don't even know what that means.

If your answer is Yes
Then that is some kind of ....

View attachment 27939

Too bad my answer wasn't yes then I guess.

Also quite funny that YOU are the one accusing the other side of invoking magic...

I'm not the one invoking a miracle worker who "speaks" things into existance.
Abracadabra, anyone?

 

[HonestJoe]

I never said it was more important than other scientific theories and in fact stated it integrates with the science of ecology. It is supported by genetics which is in turn supported by chemistry and chemistry supported by physics. So they are all important with and I never stated one was more important than another. But which other theory has been baselessly attacked by more people using opinions and inaccurate claims?

Sorry, I wasn’t intending to come across as aggressively towards you as I might have appeared. I don’t really disagree with you, I just think it’s a wider picture. Just as there are people who baselessly attack evolutionary theory, there are just as many who blindly defend it. I disagree with you that the theory needs to be discussed in any kind of detail outside professional scientific contexts, any more than any other scientific theory does. A basic high-level understanding should be established in school but anything more details in specialism but while I most certainly wouldn’t discourage anyone from taking an interest in any specific subject and learning more about it, professionally or recreationally, nothing so abstract needs any kind of general discussion, especially among people who typically haven’t taken that effort (regardless of their opinions).

 

[blü 2]

There is nothing to dent about the evolution.
It is a stuff of science fiction

Once again you run away from the actual question. Once again your answer makes no sense.

If evolution is merely "the stuff of science fiction" then there's even less reason why creationists haven't blown great gaping scientific holes in it. Yet they can't make the tiniest mark on it.

If offered as a statement about reality (instead of a pretty metaphor or a fable for its own sake), creationism is pure and unadulterated baseless nonsense, tales from before the Bronze Age. The evidence against it is massive in quantity and ─ as creationism's impotence against it shows ─ uncontradicted in any of its essentials.

I think your problem is a common one ─ you have no personal understanding of what evolution is, or what the theory of evolution says and why it says it; and being unable to defend your position for that reason, you have to rely on those propaganda videos instead of answering in your own words. As a creo, you're actively discouraged from reasoned enquiry and skeptical analysis. Creationism is so terrified of those things that it forbids them. Its magazines refuse to publish valid results that don't support its claims. They wear their fear on their face.

That doesn't mean you have to follow. In the real world you're allowed to think for yourself. Don't leave it too late before you start.

 

[MJFlores]

However the question I asked you is why in nearly 60 years creos have made not one scientific scratch on the theory of evolution. What's the answer? Stupidity? Incompetence? A failure to understand science? Dishonesty? Blind faith?

Creos are not biscuits, almost grabbed a pack or Oreo there.
Creos are creationist?

I do not now about the history of Creos or even Oreos.
I am not aware of them at all.
I don't even care if whether they made a dent or not on the Theory of Evo.

The thing is it is my first time to answer on this thread about evo.
Sure I was aware of Darwinism, but it was during my High School days and that was in the 70s
After High School, we tend to forget physics, biology etc and prepare for the next stage College.
So I'm just a bystander with principles I hold dear.
I don't go by Blind Faith. Blind Faith is believing in something one does not understand.
I put faith on things I understand and believe in.

 

[MJFlores]

I don't know. I think it's quite likely that it can, yes. Considering life is, at bottom, just extreme chemistry. There's nothing going on in our bodies that can't be explained by physics and chemistry.

So I'm not sure why one would assume that physics and chemistry couldn't get it started.

But I don't know. Abiogenesis researchers are working to find out.
Those creationists you like to quote? They don't work to find out. They just like to pretend they already know before even investigating the question (because they dogmatically already believe something that isn't compatible....)



I don't even know what that means.



Too bad my answer wasn't yes then I guess.

Also quite funny that YOU are the one accusing the other side of invoking magic...

I'm not the one invoking a miracle worker who "speaks" things into existance.
Abracadabra, anyone?

Yep, it was magic but this magic has no magician to do the magic.
Now that is weird.
When that happens it is like a horror movie.

My position is Someone made something out of nothing.
In Evolution - No one made something out of nothing.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure.... First, just tell us HOW ancient men, who lived more than 3k years ago, could have possibly known these scientific Facts before science.

How? It is obvious that had no knowledge of science, and believed based on ancient mythology and tradition. Today we have the science, and of course, know better unless some cling blindly to ancient mythology as the literal history of our physical existence and humanity.

I have many more, but I will wait and see IF you can explain HOW anyone but God knew this and wrote this so many thousands of years ago

Many more what? Apparently no objective verifiable evidence.

You avoided the question: Where is the objective verifiable evidence outside the Bible that would support your Creationist mythological assertions?

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure appearances of people change from generations to generations
But they are still people.
These are made possible through interracial marriages
But then again they are still people.

What I am after is the evolution of one kind of animal to another like the chart below from a YouTube video about evolution:

View attachment 27938

In the chart - it shows the progress of evolution from:
1. Protozoa
2. to a Worm
3. to a Fish
4. Another fish
5. Then another fish
6. Then a reptile
7. Then a rat
8. Then a monkey
9. Then an ape
10. Then finally a homo sapien

See the jumps? From a germ to a worm then to fishes then reptiles then a rodent then monkey to man.
Have anyone seen such transformation? At least witness something like that?
These things are stuff of Hollywood, aren't they?

You are clealry ignoring the vast evidence of fossil intermediates based on fossil evidence and current evidence of living life today based on your mythological religious agenda.

The evolution of homo sapien is not from apes. Homo sapien and apes evolved from earlier primates by the objective verifiable evidence over millions of years, and not grade D sci-fi movies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yep, it was magic but this magic has no magician to do the magic.

What are you talking about?

Now that is weird.

I don't think it's weird. Magicians, after all, don't seem to exist. Not real ones anyway... illusionists, yes. Actual "harry potter style" magicians? No....

When that happens it is like a horror movie.

When what happens?

My position is Someone made something out of nothing.

Then your position is a baseless religious claim with no evidence.

In Evolution - No one made something out of nothing.

Exactly.
Evolution doesn't require assuming the existance of supernatural undemonstrable magical super beings.

Ever heared of Occam's Razor?
Something about "the explanation that requires the least assumptions...."

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm sure the Homo Habilis kept records of themselves millions of years, to give chronicles for future Homo Sapiens to read.

View attachment 27937

Are you sure?!?!!? Please document with references, and objective verifiable evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

There is nothing to dent about the evolution.
It is a stuff of science fiction

Well, a number of those are NOT on the direct line to humans.

 

[metis]

Where did your 10 yo daughter went?

W 8 Mile Rd
Farmington Hills, Michigan


Barnes Research Office Building
4920 Plainfield Avenue NE
Grand Rapids, Michigan

16 1/2 Mile Road
Sterling Heights, MI
48312, USA

Goldenview Drive
Battle Creek, MI

If none of these, then it must be another CoC as there are different CoC.

None of the above. but I am not willing to give the exact location of where I live. The church does use "_____ _____ Church of Christ" as its name.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure appearances of people change from generations to generations
But they are still people.

If people would produce something other then people, then evolution theory would be falsified.

If you would understand the basics of the theory you are hellbend on arguing against, you'ld know such basic things.

I think it's hilarious how what creationists think would demonstrate evolution, would actually falsify it instead............

What I am after is the evolution of one kind of animal to another like the chart below from a YouTube video about evolution:

At no point in history did an animal produce another "kind" of animal.
Speciation is a vertical process.
Canines produce more canines and subspecies of canine - which remain canines.

Canines won't turn into felines.

We, homo sapiens, are a primate subspecies. So are chimps.
Just like we are both mammals. And tetrapods. And vertebrates.

In the chart - it shows the progress of evolution from:
1. Protozoa
2. to a Worm
3. to a Fish
4. Another fish
5. Then another fish
6. Then a reptile
7. Then a rat
8. Then a monkey
9. Then an ape
10. Then finally a homo sapien

Which is a gradual progressive process of speciation. ie: species producing subspecies gradually over time. Every one of these creatures were the same species as their biological parents.

It's not hard to get.

Just think about how roman languages evolved.
2000 years ago, they all spoke Latin.
Today, Latin has evolved into the subspecies languages known as french, italian, spanish, portuguese...

At no point in history did a bunch of latin speaking folk decide to raise the next generation in spanish. At no point in history was french invented overnight.

Instead, latin dialects formed in certain geographic locations.
As generations passed, these dialects diverged further and further from eachother.
To the point that you could no longer call them the same language.

Think about it.

How is it possible that Latin ancestors produce spanish and french speaking descendants?
And that over time, gradually, without at some point a latin speaking mother raising a spanish speaking child?

When you understand the answer to that question, you'll understand how a primate ancestor overtime, gradually, can produce chimps and homo sapiens.

That primate ancestor = latin
Gorilla's, oerang oetangs, chimps and homo's = spanish, french, italian, portugese.

See the jumps?

On the chart, yes.
In real life: no.

Because evolution is a gradual process.
Each generation is 99.99% identical to the previous one.
But that 0.01% over time, accumulates.
Generation 2, it is 0.02% different from generation 0.
By generation 100, it is 1% different from generation 0.


Accumulation of micro change inevitable ends up being macro changes in reference to the original state.

Have anyone seen such transformation?

Considering that this was a process that unfolded over several 100 million years - no, nobody observed it, if that is what you are asking.

But that doesn't mean that we can't know about.
A process like that is verifiable through the evidence at our disposal today. Like genetics and the fossil record. But especially genetics.

If we know that changes accumulate over generations, then we can make testable and verifiable predictions about what we should and shouldn't see in the genome of species.

And when we test these predictions - they check out.
The genetic record makes common ancestry of species nothing short of a fact!

It is a genetic fact that we share ancesters with chimps, for example.

These things are stuff of Hollywood, aren't they?

No. It's the stuff of science. Testable, predictable, verifiable science.

 

[Seve]

How do you Bible-splain the water sandwich and the morning-evening reference before the stars? Also the vegetation before the stars and coming from the land and not the sea?

Dear sealchan,

Allow me to explain further to you how I read and see the Scripture: In the context of Genesis 1:1-2, I see the narrative as saying:

Gen 1:1-2 In the beginning God Created the heaven (Hebrew - Air) and the Earth (Hebrew -Ground). And the Earth (Ground) was without form, (Dust) and void; (Empty) and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The 3 elements necessary for all physical form are shown, Air, Dust, and Water. Everything which is physical is composed of these 3 elements. The text is correct in showing that the water was not directly created, or spoken into being, because it consists of elements of the Air or Atmosphere. Water is Hydrogen and Oxygen and came from the Atmosphere and is not shown as a separate creation.

IOW, the Invisible Almighty God first CREATED the elements needed in order for His Son to physically make/form the HeavenS and the Earth with his own hand - like a Potter would mold a clay.

The Light which came into the physical world on the first Day was Jesus, called YHWH in the Old Testament. YHWH, the Son, provided the Light for the first 3 Days of Creation and will also provide the Light in the New Heaven in the End. Rev 21:23

Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. v5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

(Gen 1:6-8 KJV)And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. v7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so. v8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The 1st firmament of heaven Made (Gen 1:6-8) was like a glass container (simile) in which God would build above the firmament. The firmament protected Adam's Earth from the water which completely surrounded this firmament. The verses below reveal this since God places water inside the firmament of heaven above.

He then built solid ground (similar to a man made island) on top of the water under the heaven. Can you visualize our Lord God building a solid ground into the middle of water? IF you can, then, that’ more or less how God divided the waters from the waters.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. v10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Jhn 1:3-4 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. v4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men

Because, inside YHWH, the Son' inner physical body is LIFE...

He caused the plants / vegetation and trees to grow which was planted on the 3rd Day, Gen 1:12 on Adam's Heaven or World - at the garden of Eden - which was made BEFORE the Stars of our Cosmos, which were not made until the 4th Day. Genesis 1:16 That is WHY I continue to post that God made 3 Heavens or Worlds instead of just 1, as most people believe.

OUR GOD IS AN AWESOME GOD!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I am not a believer on Evolution

I take this as an admission that you haven't looked into (or maybe simply haven't understood) the evidence.

An Evolution which no person has observed

What's been observed is the way the world/universe works, and then evidence is also observed that, when combined with knowledge of how the world/universe operates makes the evidence pretty undeniable to anyone who understands it. Look up ERVs and their implications for common descent of apes to humans. The evidence truly is a smoking gun. Evolution is real, and we are related to the other apes. There is really no denying this once you have reviewed that evidence.

An Evolution with really require Faith to believe

Not with the overwhelming body of evidence available it doesn't.

The faith that nothing made everything

And now here we are, back to you displaying outright that you have no idea what you are talking about. I've already stated to you (as have several others in this thread), that evolution does not include any statement about how "nothing made everything." Evolution doesn't include this. It doesn't. Stop saying it. It only makes you look incredibly dumb and ignorant.

If that is the case then God's 6 day creation makes a lot more sense

There is absolutely no evidence for this - but it is still not within the purview of evolution anyway.

It is were somebody [God] made everything

You have absolutely no way to demonstrate or know this. None. You should probably stop saying this as well.