What is Evolution Article

[Bunyip]

Just read an article on it, sorry, I don't believe we evolved from primates is what I should have said.

No worries. Why do you see a sub-family transition such as that within the homonidae (great apes) to be less plausible than a far grander transition between classes?

No offence, but that is a significant dissonance.

 

[outhouse]

Just read an article on it, sorry, I don't believe we evolved from primates is what I should have said.

With all the factual evidence, its impossible to refute.

Or Christians would have done it a hundred years ago when Christians helped build this scientific theory.


I was wondering if you apply this same strict adherence of denial of evidence when the tables are turned and we dig into the plausibility of creation mythology?


How is it you think you know more then all the worlds combined scientific academies ???????????????????????????????????




IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.

•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.

•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

The problem is, evolution is fact. There is no debate.

Empirical evolution, natural selection that is observable is fact, most theist would agree on that.

[/QUOTE]We are only trying to help educate theist a bit stubborn to overcome their bias they were more then likely born into.[/QUOTE]

Everybody has bias's including yourself (me too), and it would be shortsighted to think that you are free from them unlike the ignorant Theists. Not saying that this is your position, but if it is, it is not free from ignorance.

[/QUOTE]Micro-Evolution Is evolution, it is like picking one second out of a year, and trying to describe the year by focusing on the one second. The year is context. Millions to be exact.[/QUOTE]

Exactly Micro-Evolution is the observable 1 second, The other 31,535,999 seconds in a year in my mind is all speculation, and assumptions. Just because the observable one second is true doesn't mean the rest is true.


[/QUOTE]we evolved from primates it is about factual.[/QUOTE]

More assumptions based on static not dynamic evidence.

 

[Bunyip]

Why would it need to be observable to be known?

That seems to be the crux of your argument - but surely it is just a misconception.

I can't observe air, but so what? I can still measure it, test it, observe its effects and so on. Why do you think observation here is even an issue?

May I take the liberty of pointing out that you believe in Jesus, but can not observe him - so how is direct observation even relevant?

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

With all the factual evidence, its impossible to refute.


I was wondering if you apply this same strict adherence of denial of evidence when the tables are turned and we dig into the plausibility of creation mythology?


How is it you think you know more then all the worlds combined scientific academies ???????????????????????????????????


.

A. Absolute statements are rarely credible

B. Who said I believe in the strict biblical account of creationism. (I'm actually currently not sure what I believe about creation.)

C That's like me saying how can you deny all the worlds combined Christian academies?????????????????? See it's a bad argument.

It depends on how much credence I put in modern academia. The answer is not much.

 

[outhouse]

More assumptions based on static not dynamic evidence.

Do you have a better explanation of how life started over 3.5 billion years ago with bacteria, and we ended up with a conscious mind that was advanced enough to take us off this planet to the moon?

You also failed to answer why you think you know more then the worlds collective scientific organizations. Which of those sentences above are wrong and why?

Because you don't understand basic biology?

Or do you have a replacement hypothesis?

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

Why would it need to be observable to be known?

That seems to be the crux of your argument - but surely it is just a misconception.

I can't observe air, but so what? I can still measure it, test it, observe its effects and so on. Why do you think observation here is even an issue?

May I take the liberty of pointing out that you believe in Jesus, but can not observe him - so how is direct observation even relevant?

See but you can measure test, and even recreate air. You cannot do that with evolution at the class level.

In regards to Jesus I believe the witnesses, who observed him and his Resurrection. It was observable.

 

[outhouse]

It depends on how much credence I put in modern academia. The answer is not much.

Hypocritical?


Your typing on a computer science made.

Your only alive today due to the CDC's knowledge of evolution.

You cannot visit a doctor because every dingle thing he knows is due to science.

 

[Parsimony]

I'm glad to see that you have an openness about this issue.

Do you understand how radiometric dating works? That's a good place to start and is relevant to evolutionary evidence.

 

[Bunyip]

See but you can measure test, and even recreate air. You cannot do that with evolution at the class level.

Of course you can. That is how they came up with the theory. You can observe evolution through the fossil record, through studying morphology, through DNA analysis and so on.

In regards to Jesus I believe the witnesses, who observed him and his Resurrection. It was observable.

Sure, it was observable - but you did not observe it and you have no account from anybody who did.

 

[outhouse]

See but you can measure test, and even recreate air. You cannot do that with evolution at the class level.

.

Yes we can. Speciation has been observed many times. Its your lack of knowledge in genetics that is blinding you.

In regards to Jesus I believe the witnesses, who observed him and his Resurrection. It was observable

Yet that is absolutely laughable. I have no real education less marine biology.

I am well trained in biblical studies, and follow a historical jesus closely.


No his resurrection was not observable nor was it observed.

It probably started out a spiritual resurrection in mythology that later turned into a physical resurrection.

We don't know what happened to his body, a few scholars think dogs and birds ate it. I run with, we don't know.

Not one bit of the NT was written by a single person who ever heard a word pass through Jesus lips.

 

[outhouse]

Before we proceed, you need to find mistakes that prove professors in every country around the world are in error.


IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.

•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.

•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin

 

[outhouse]

You need to refute this factual evidence as well

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

Do you have a better explanation of how life started over 3.5 billion years ago with bacteria, and we ended up with a conscious mind that was advanced enough to take us off this planet to the moon?

First, There are a lot of assumptions in your premise, that I don't necessarily agree with.

Second, If I do not have a better theory that does not make your theory true. It just means I don't have a better theory. That's like if I said in AD 1750 that God must be the true creator of the universe because no one has a better theory for creation. Therefore God as the creator must be true. See, not a very good argument.

Last, the Conscious mind that can conceptualize mathematics, morality, life after death, love, and a host of other complex issues, is a major reason I don't buy evolution. I don't think it is logical that natural selection accounts for the conscious mind. Though I know there is a great deal of speculation on how this could naturally occur......

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

Before we proceed, you need to find mistakes that prove professors in every country around the world are in error.

No I don't, for a great many years every professor believed the world was flat. Academic consensus does not equate to truth.

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

No worries. Why do you see a sub-family transition such as that within the homonidae (great apes) to be less plausible than a far grander transition between classes?

No offence, but that is a significant dissonance.

None taken, I actually said I believed sub-family transition in my mind including humans from primates is much more plausible than transition between classes. Doesn't mean I believe the former though.

 

[outhouse]

First, There are a lot of assumptions in your premise, that I don't necessarily agree with.

No assumption at all.

Just your refusal of evidence.

Second, If I do not have a better theory that does not make your theory true.

No but it helps determine which was most plausible

Last, the Conscious mind that can conceptualize mathematics, morality, life after death, love, and a host of other complex issues, is a major reason I don't buy evolution. I don't think it is logical that natural selection accounts for the conscious mind.

Its just lack of knowledge.

With education you would have no questions.


The human brain evolved from simple to more complex thoughts. spirit ans soul are at this time mythology only.

BUT AGAIN you do not pass go, you don't get to debate further until you address the above, and tell us what specifically you find in error.

Before we proceed, you need to find mistakes that prove professors in every country around the world are in error.


IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.

•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.

•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin

 

[outhouse]

You do know failure to address known credible information is religious fanaticism?

 

[outhouse]

You need to refute this factual evidence as well

Ignoring this will not make it go away

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

You need to refute this factual evidence as well

Please give me a link to the website you got it from, and the dates of all the skulls. I am skeptical that they are ordered by date or even if they can be. Many of these so called proof diagrams are manipulated to make a point.