Evolution is a fact, and a theory

[McBell]

what???

I believe it is a prime example of the idea that if you do not have any facts, truth, logic, or reason to present, then just shovel as much bull **** as you can as fast as you can so that they throw their hands up in frustration, then fly on home and claim victory.

 

[I r Baboon]

I believe it is a prime example of the idea that if you do not have any facts, truth, logic, or reason to present, then just shovel as much bull **** as you can as fast as you can so that they throw their hands up in frustration, then fly on home and claim victory.

...tis a sad state of affairs indeed.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Creationism is the best choice because of the lack of evidence of the tree model. No observable, repeatable tree model, no science, and no evolution that is remarkably different than mere change within an associated biologic family classification. Asking why it couldn’t happen is a philosophic question that means nothing really. The evidence is just not there.

Some recent evidence confirming biological evolution.

PLOS Biology: Resurrecting an Ancient Enzyme to Address Gene Duplication

 

[Agnostic75]

Creationism is the best choice because of the lack of evidence of the tree model. No observable, repeatable tree model, no science, and no evolution that is remarkably different than mere change within an associated biologic family classification. Asking why it couldn’t happen is a philosophic question that means nothing really. The evidence is just not there.

No, we need specific quotes from specific experts.

You need to demonstrate that you personally know enough about biology to adequately discredit macro evolution. The fact that some creationists are experts does not prove anything about what you personally know about biology. You cannot judge what you do not understand, including Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun. The flagellum is a very important topic for creationists. As Ken Miller said in the article, the flagellum can be called a poster child of creationists since they say that it provides excellent evidence for intelligent design. Since you do not understand the article, how can you adequately judge it?

 

[Agnostic75]

Because modern science operates under the philosophic framework of atheistic naturalism. God is not allowed.

But the majority of Christian experts accept evolution.

 

[Agnostic75]

Creationism is the best choice because of the lack of evidence of the tree model. No observable, repeatable tree model, no science, and no evolution that is remarkably different than mere change within an associated biologic family classification. Asking why it couldn’t happen is a philosophic question that means nothing really. The evidence is just not there.

Consider the following:

Supernatural causes for natural phenomena are always possible. What's different, however, in the scientific view is the acknowledgement that if supernatural causes are there, they are above our capacity to analyze and interpret.


Saying that something has a supernatural cause is always possible, but saying that the supernatural can be investigated by science, which always has to work with natural tools and mechanisms, is simply incorrect. So by placing the supernatural as a cause in science, you effectively have what you might call a science-stopper. If you attribute an event to the supernatural, you can by definition investigate it no further.


If you close off investigation, you don't look for natural causes. If we had done that 100 years ago in biology, think of what we wouldn't have discovered because we would have said, "Well, the designer did it. End of story. Let's go do something else." It would have been a terrible day for science.


If science is competent at anything, it's in investigating the natural and material world around us. What science isn't very good at is answering questions that also matter to us in a big way, such as the meaning, value, and purpose of things. Science is silent on those issues. There are a whole host of philosophical and moral questions that are important to us as human beings for which we have to make up our minds using a method outside of science.

Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question.

 

[Agnostic75]

A lot has to do with the political and philosophical climates of the specific times. Here is how it went and goes today. Creation was winning because there wasn’t a viable evolution argument until Darwin came along. Darwin was right to some degree, change does happen. Then over time a lawsuit was filed to kick God out of the argument and that is when a firm immovable stance of atheistic naturalism was adopted by mainstream science. Now today atheistic naturalism and evolution is propped up by fear, intimidation, bullying, propaganda, lawsuits, public ridicule and shame.

If you are referring to the Dover trial, the judge is a Christian, and a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican president.

"Atheistic naturalism and evolution" is utterly absurd since evolution does not have anything at all to do with how life began on earth, and how life began in the universe. All of the U.S. Supreme Court judges are Christians, and the vast majority of federal judges are Christians. Certainly no one is intimidating those judges. Who intimidated Ken Miller to accept theistic evolution? No one. Who intimidated Michael Behe to accept macro evolution. No one.

Why do you care whether God created humans quickly, or slowly over time? As millions of theistic evolutionists would tell you, if macro evolution is true, that does not mean that atheism, and naturalism are true, only that God created man in successive, dramatically different stages over a long period of time.

When Charles Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species," he was a theist, not an atheist.

I doubt that you can even answer some basic questions about biology, let alone some advanced questions, without copying something from someone else's writings.

Even if creationism is true, that does not reasonably prove who God is.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Man of Faith:


Henry Morris, Ph.d., Institute for Creation Research, was an inerrantist. He once said that “the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.” (Henry Morris, ‘Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science,’ 1970, p. 32-33).

Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, are conservative Christians. They wrote a book about homosexuality that is titled 'Homosexuality, The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate.' Chapter 4 is titled 'Is homosexuality a psychopathology?' After discussing a lot of scientific issues in that chapter, the authors conclude with the following paragraph:

"Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church. In the days of Nero it was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy, but God weighs such a life and finds it lacking."

What is your opinion of those comments? Morris was an inerrantist, and so are Jones and Yarhouse. All three men are, or were in Morris' case, scientists, but reject anything that science says that contradicts their literalist interpretations of the Bible.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have answered this in my many posts, but I can see that you haven’t put all the pieces together yet. A lot has to do with the political and philosophical climates of the specific times. Here is how it went and goes today. Creation was winning because there wasn’t a viable evolution argument until Darwin came along. Darwin was right to some degree, change does happen. Then over time a lawsuit was filed to kick God out of the argument and that is when a firm immovable stance of atheistic naturalism was adopted by mainstream science. Now today atheistic naturalism and evolution is propped up by fear, intimidation, bullying, propaganda, lawsuits, public ridicule and shame.

This is exactly the same answer you gave before, you just copied and pasted it. Do not insult my intelligence.

Now, allow me to be clearer. Here are the blank spaces you need to fill in order to sufficiently answer my question:

1) creationism was winning
2) Darwin was right to some degree
3) ?????
4) kick God out of science
5) ?????
6) naturalism adopted by mainstream science

See numbers 3 and 5? Those are the gaps. Explain.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have answered this in my many posts, but I can see that you haven’t put all the pieces together yet. A lot has to do with the political and philosophical climates of the specific times. Here is how it went and goes today. Creation was winning because there wasn’t a viable evolution argument until Darwin came along. Darwin was right to some degree, change does happen. Then over time a lawsuit was filed to kick God out of the argument and that is when a firm immovable stance of atheistic naturalism was adopted by mainstream science. Now today atheistic naturalism and evolution is propped up by fear, intimidation, bullying, propaganda, lawsuits, public ridicule and shame.

Are you implying that it is reasonable for people to reject creationism if there is an equal playing field? Let's consider a hypothetical person named John Smith. John was raised in Alabama, which is a Bible Belt state. His parents are Christians, accept inerrancy, and are creationists. John grows up accepting creationism. He goes to a Christian college and gets a Ph.D. in biology. He is still a creationist. A rich relative leaves him millions of dollars. I said that because having a job would not be an issue. Because of additional research, John becomes convinced that theistic evolution is true, and rejects creationism.

So John certainly had more than an equal playing field, but eventually rejected creationism. What problems do you have with his decision to accept theistic evolution? Prior to the 1800's, there was also more than an equal playing field since creationists had the advantage. Do you object that prior to the 1800's, many Christians became theistic evolutionists? After all, there was more than an equal playing field.

Do you believe that Christian theistic evolutionists can go to heaven if they do not change their minds?

 

[shawn001]

Man of faith where did the heavy elements come from to create life in the first place?

How many mass extinction events have occur on Earth that humans know about?

All life on Earth now:

"The Permian mass extinction has been nicknamed The Great Dying, since a staggering 96% of species died out. All life on Earth today is descended from the 4% of species that survived."

Big Five Mass Extinction Events ~ The Nature Animals

National academy of science

"Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

 

[Leftimies]

Biological Evolution itself is as much a fact as Atomic Theory and Circuit Theory. The theory part is the combination of verified hypothesis, observable phenomenon and causes and behavior of biological evolution. It is the exact mechanisms of biological evolution that we study, test and verify or discard. But that does not change the fact that biological evolution occurs.
As for "missing links", let's look at this way. if we find Specimen A1, and then we find Specimen A2, and we can tell that A1 in the ancestor of A2, there will be some who will say "Where is the transitional form between them?". Now, years later, we find Specimen A1.5, the transitional form. Where then is the transitional form between A1 and A1.5? Or A1.5 and A2? The "missing link" now becomes A1.25, or A1.75.
The formation of fossils is a rare thing that involves specific conditions to occur. We are very lucky to find what we have found so far. 70 million years of human evolution would require 70 million fossils in perfect condition to satisfy the "missing link" detractors. And that would defy logic when we consider the conditions that must occur for fossilization.

I support evolution with full spirit, and vow about destruction upon those who dare to deny it its just that I wish to get as much detail verified about it as possible. We still have quite uncertainty about some more specific matters. But that is how I believe we came to be. Of course, under the circumstances, perfect verification is not rational to be expected, which is why I accept it as it is.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I support evolution with full spirit, and vow about destruction upon those who dare to deny it its just that I wish to get as much detail verified about it as possible. We still have quite uncertainty about some more specific matters. But that is how I believe we came to be. Of course, under the circumstances, perfect verification is not rational to be expected, which is why I accept it as it is.

Always more to learn. Amazingly, there is more verifiable evidence for the Theory of Evolution than there is for the Theory of Gravity.

 

[heksesang]

Creationism is the best choice because of the lack of evidence of the tree model. No observable, repeatable tree model, no science, and no evolution that is remarkably different than mere change within an associated biologic family classification. Asking why it couldn’t happen is a philosophic question that means nothing really. The evidence is just not there.

Lack of evidence can never be considered evidence for another view. The same way that an evolution scientist could not claim that evolution is true based on lack of evidence for creationism alone, you cannot claim the lack of evidence for evolution alone to be evidence for creationism.

You need to show the evidence for creationism.

 

[Matthew78]

I have answered this in my many posts, but I can see that you haven’t put all the pieces together yet. A lot has to do with the political and philosophical climates of the specific times. Here is how it went and goes today. Creation was winning because there wasn’t a viable evolution argument until Darwin came along. Darwin was right to some degree, change does happen. Then over time a lawsuit was filed to kick God out of the argument and that is when a firm immovable stance of atheistic naturalism was adopted by mainstream science. Now today atheistic naturalism and evolution is propped up by fear, intimidation, bullying, propaganda, lawsuits, public ridicule and shame.

My, my, my, Man of Faith,

You haven't changed a bit since the last time I was here. You make assertions, never back them up with evidence, and still like to think that you have the better, more educated opinions than us pitiful evolutonists. I underlined an assertion in the above quote from a post of yours that needs backing up with evidence. You state that there was no viable argument for evolution until Darwin came along and some mysterious lawsuit was filed to kick God out of the argument and then philosophical naturalism took over as the victor? Which lawsuit was this? Who were the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and which judge found in their favor?

 

[Agnostic75]

A lot has to do with the political and philosophical climates of the specific times. Here is how it went and goes today. Creation was winning because there wasn’t a viable evolution argument until Darwin came along. Darwin was right to some degree, change does happen. Then over time a lawsuit was filed to kick God out of the argument.......

That is completely false. The judge at the Dover trial is a Christian, and a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican president. In part of his ruling, he said the following:

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. .... an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching. .... Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion. (footnote 7 on page 46)

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena." (page 64)

Please note "we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." The judge made it clear that his comment that "ID is not science" does not make a case that intelligent design is false.

 

[dust1n]

Again, definitions are changing, now macroevolution is merely speciation, but defining a species is elusive. When people say that speciation is evidence for macroevolution that is a misunderstanding of the creation model. The species level is below the family level in the taxonomic ranking system and creation usually draws the line at the family level of change.

Hey! Look who can turn into humans.

We're one big happy family...

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Hominidae (pron.: /hɒˈmɪnɨdiː/; also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family of primates, including four extant genera: chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan),[notes 2] gorillas (Gorilla), humans (Homo), and orangutans (Pongo).[1]

 

[shawn001]

"A fragment of a pinky bone and a tooth twice the size of today's average molar are the only remnants of a species we now know lived at the same time and place as modern humans—and interbred with them. They are a part of us we never knew existed. What did these "people" look like? And how do they fit into what we thought we knew about our biological development as a species?"

[youtube]c678VIdEDdg[/youtube]
Sex in the Stone Age - National Geographic - YouTube