Are you a creationist?

[bicker]

That's not actually true. There are archeological records and logical implications based on proveable science that leads to the inescapable conclusion that humans were not "just like this" since the dawn of the Earth.

This should explain away your confusion in this regard:

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

Okay, so by definition, a theory is a description generalization. It isn't an unproven fact. The term you're confusing for "theory" is "hypothesis". A lot of people make that error.

Continuing...

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

So basically, we have unequivocal, logical proof showing evolution occurs.

 

[50 years Too!]

Of course I believe that God created the Earth, the animals, Adam and Eve -- just as the Bible says.

It's interesting to note that if you believe in the theory of evolution, everything goes in the same order as the Bible story in Genesis: First there was light, then ocean, then plants and animals, and man last. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to believe that God created the world THROUGH evolution. I don't think there's any way evolution could've "just happened" on its own.

I'm not aware of any groups who don't believe in dinosaurs -- of course there are always a few people here and there with crazy ideas -- I mean, the bones are real, and they've been found in many places across the globe. However, dinosaurs neither help nor hinders the belief in God creating the earth. Within recent history we know for certain that some animals have become extinct; that's no different from the dinosaurs.

As for who Cain married, there's another possibility: The Bible says that God created Adam and Eve, and they had children. It's entirely possible that He also created other humans, but He didn't choose to tell us about those -- He only mentioned the first ones, then He moved on to other topics. If that is true -- and it may or may not be -- then Cain could've married one of those women. The Bible does mention cities in early Genesis, so there were other people around. Had Adam and Eve lived long enough that their children populated cities? I don't know.

How we got here, however interesting, is just a curiosity. It doesn't change our lives. What really matters is how we're living our lives each day.

Mrs. Pete sums up my philosophy exactly!
I find I agree with her in most posts.

Deb

 

[Nomi]

That's not actually true. There are archeological records and logical implications based on proveable science that leads to the inescapable conclusion that humans were not "just like this" since the dawn of the Earth.

This should explain away your confusion in this regard:

Okay, so by definition, a theory is a description generalization. It isn't an unproven fact. The term you're confusing for "theory" is "hypothesis". A lot of people make that error.

Continuing...

So basically, we have unequivocal, logical proof showing evolution occurs.

Just have to say, your replies are great!

 

[Nomi]

Nomi,

Humans are no more at the point of contolling and maintaining our environment than we were thousands of years ago. It is statements like this that push the idea of evolution over the top for me and ends the discussion.

We get cold, we put on clothing, or go inside, control the temperature inside, we have a continual food source in agriculture. That said, I do have two things to add, we do face one driving force in evolution in the social pressure concerning who has the most children, but even then it's minimal. Another pressure is diseases, people immune or better able to survive a disease being able to better pass on their genes, but again with healthcare and doctors, this is minimized as well barring an outbreak crisis. We've lessened the pressures that produce the fastest and most radical evolution (which, you understand, is also a slow process, but fast in terms of the worlds history).

Thank you for the all the articles that you have made available. I have to admit, I did not read them. The reason ~ the internet is full of misleading information. We all know that anyone can write an article, do a research, and claim observable facts and absolute truth. If you search hard enough you can find answers and evidence to almost anything you are looking or longing for. It is just a matter of who and what you decide to accept as truth.

I can understand that position on the one blog article I posted, but everything else provided peer reviewed and retested (or rather constantly tested) research. To claim an observable fact and put forward their research they have to provide said observable fact and research that is then put up to the scrutiny of all other scientists and retested again and again and again before it even makes it to a website. The awesome thing is that you can test and attempt to battle the research for yourself, if you feel motivated enough. These articles, being about a controversial subject like evolution, are put up to scrutiny by creationists as well and stand up to that, where any evidence put forth by creationists does not stand up to even a portion of that scrutiny.

My truth lies in the Bible. I know that my choice requires a giant leap of faith. I willingly accept and admit that. However, your belief in evolution isn't much different. You have made the choice to accept the truth as presented by others and even with all the unknowns and flaws surrounding it, you took a giant leap of faith towards it.

Just a note to the OP, I also believe God created dinosaurs.

There is a difference. For evolution, there are mountains of evidence and the 'leap' is no more than the one I make assuming I am sitting on a couch, from the evidence I'm given from my senses.

 

[Momvic5]

That's not actually true. There are archeological records and logical implications based on proveable science that leads to the inescapable conclusion that humans were not "just like this" since the dawn of the Earth.

This should explain away your confusion in this regard:

Okay, so by definition, a theory is a description generalization. It isn't an unproven fact. The term you're confusing for "theory" is "hypothesis". A lot of people make that error.

Continuing...

So basically, we have unequivocal, logical proof showing evolution occurs.

We get cold, we put on clothing, or go inside, control the temperature inside, we have a continual food source in agriculture. That said, I do have two things to add, we do face one driving force in evolution in the social pressure concerning who has the most children, but even then it's minimal. Another pressure is diseases, people immune or better able to survive a disease being able to better pass on their genes, but again with healthcare and doctors, this is minimized as well barring an outbreak crisis. We've lessened the pressures that produce the fastest and most radical evolution (which, you understand, is also a slow process, but fast in terms of the worlds history).


I can understand that position on the one blog article I posted, but everything else provided peer reviewed and retested (or rather constantly tested) research. To claim an observable fact and put forward their research they have to provide said observable fact and research that is then put up to the scrutiny of all other scientists and retested again and again and again before it even makes it to a website. The awesome thing is that you can test and attempt to battle the research for yourself, if you feel motivated enough. These articles, being about a controversial subject like evolution, are put up to scrutiny by creationists as well and stand up to that, where any evidence put forth by creationists does not stand up to even a portion of that scrutiny.



There is a difference. For evolution, there are mountains of evidence and the 'leap' is no more than the one I make assuming I am sitting on a couch, from the evidence I'm given from my senses.

bicker,

Your selected defintion of theory doesn't change a thing for me. The evidence for evolution does not make up for the lack of evidence for it. The terms descriptive generalization just allows for flaws and implies that the that proven facts do not prove the idea. The proven facts only add to the desription of the idea. Thanks for clarifying that for me. It totally confirms why evolution remains a theory and why so many people reject it.

So when one states the fact of evolution, they are not considering the missing links or the unknowns. One is only referring to the proveable facts that describe or imply the idea of evolution. How convenient.


Nomi,

We will just have to disagree. I hope your senses do not fail you.

 

[Wishing on a star]

The evidence of evolution only proves to the real-live-eye that something that already exists is reproducible and can adapt. It proves nothing more. It does not prove that the world came into existence through living matter evolving or adapting. The public eye has yet to witness any such evidence that concludes that we are in existence due to the process of evolution. It is your "private" matter/logic/belief that ties the connection between human existence and the process of evolution.

ITA with the bolded sentence above.

I will reiterate that there is no empirical evidence that humans, or any other species, evolved out of nothingness, atoms, dirt, etc...

As has been noted, yes there is adaptation, natural selection, etc...
But, there is simply no evidence whatsoever that any species has ever shown signs of evolving into another species.

And, just as importantly, the theory of evolotion can simply not explain where the original matter/organisms came from to begin with...

To follow the theory of evolution back to the very origins simply does not work and can not be explained.

One would have to believe that something new can be produced from nothing.

One would have to believe that, somehow, 'life' just began from lifeless atoms. At this time, there is no explanation or empirical evidence at all that life can occur from lifeless atoms/molecules.

NOTE: according to the scriptures, God/The Lord created humanity from the dust of the earth, but he created humanity in His image (not the image of any genetic predecesor) and God himself gave humanity the breath of life.

While I do not claim to know the exact origins of our universe and of human life, (anyone who thinks that they do is completely egotisitical and misguided) I do have to acknowledge that BOTH evolution and creation are 'theories' which are based on nothing more than guesswork and faith.

Some have faith in our admittedly limited knowledge.

Some have faith in an unlimited higher being.

I happen to prefer the latter.

 

[bicker]

Your selected defintion of theory doesn't change a thing for me.

Well, it does change things with regard to the effect of the word as you were using it.

The evidence for evolution does not make up for the lack of evidence for it.

That's not the case. The evidence for the facts of evolution is incontrovertible. Science doesn't work like philosophy. Truth is determined by very clear rules that everyone agrees to.

That's why evolution belongs in science class, and creationism belongs in the church or in comparative religion classes (which is all that matters to me, by the way).

You can have your rules apply, to you person, in your home, and in your church.

The terms descriptive generalization just allows for flaws and implies that the that proven facts do not prove the idea.

Then skip the descriptive generalization and just look at the facts of evolution: The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Okay, so evolution has happened. It is true. It is factual. No generalization necessary.

And focusing just on that is fine with me, since it gets us to the exact same place.

So when one states the fact of evolution, they are not considering the missing links or the unknowns.

Not at all. They're simply focusing on the facts.

 

[bicker]

But, there is simply no evidence whatsoever that any species has ever shown signs of evolving into another species.

That is not true. There is such evidence.

One would have to believe that something new can be produced from nothing.

Just a quick note: You've left the realm of biology, and now you're contesting the existence of Quantum Physics. While biologists are pretty easy-going and readily will admit that there are some kinks in the chain, Physics isn't as loosy-goosy.

 

[Wishing on a star]

That's not the case. The evidence for the facts of evolution is incontrovertible. Science doesn't work like philosophy. Truth is determined by very clear rules that everyone agrees to.

I just have to very stongly disagree with this.

Not true at all.

Darwin's work, was just one man's 'philosophy' which had very racist underpinnings about the 'ascention of the races'.

Scientists do have their agenda's.

There is NO doubt that science is fallible and is limited by the human men who attempt to conduct it.

And, 'truth' is a another whole issue in and of itself.

 

[Wishing on a star]

That is not true. There is such evidence.

Again... I disagree.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Originally posted by Ms.Pete - copied from the post above....
As for who Cain married, there's another possibility: The Bible says that God created Adam and Eve, and they had children. It's entirely possible that He also created other humans, but He didn't choose to tell us about those -- He only mentioned the first ones, then He moved on to other topics. If that is true -- and it may or may not be -- then Cain could've married one of those women. The Bible does mention cities in early Genesis, so there were other people around. Had Adam and Eve lived long enough that their children populated cities? I don't know.

Genetic evidence does clearly point to a single 'Eve'.

 

[perla75]

Originally posted by Ms.Pete - copied from the post above....
As for who Cain married, there's another possibility: The Bible says that God created Adam and Eve, and they had children. It's entirely possible that He also created other humans, but He didn't choose to tell us about those -- He only mentioned the first ones, then He moved on to other topics. If that is true -- and it may or may not be -- then Cain could've married one of those women. The Bible does mention cities in early Genesis, so there were other people around. Had Adam and Eve lived long enough that their children populated cities? I don't know.

Genetic evidence does clearly point to a single 'Eve'.

This stuff fascinates me! Do you have a link where I could read more about this genetic evidence?

 

[bicker]

Disagreeing with confirmed facts. Okay, well then there is nothing to discuss. We're not talking the same language.

 

[ford family]

Darwin's work, was just one man's 'philosophy' which had very racist underpinnings about the 'ascention of the races'.

Not so. Darwin was not a racist. Rather the opposite as he was vehemently anti slavery and worked tirelessly to improve the lot of some native tribes. The racist slur was used by the established Church at that time (for which it has recently apologised) but is still promoted by religious extremists today for reasons of self interest.

ford family

 

[Nomi]

Not so. Darwin was not a rascist. Rather the opposite as he was vehemently anti slavery and worked tirelessly to improve the lot of some native tribes. The rascist slur was used by the established Church at that time (for which it has recently apologised) but is still promoted by religious extremists today for reasons of self interest.

ford family

Exactly.

 

[TnTsParty]

Really? Are you joking? I hope so, otherwise some serious problems are going on with education!

Evolution happens when a species needs to adapt to a changing environment, in that the organisms with the changes to survive are better able to pass on their genetic codes. Humans are at the point of controlling and maintaining their environment, suiting it to them instead of the other way around, so there is no evolution. That said, people are losing their teeth (less instances of wisdom teeth overall) and their toes (well, smaller toes) because we don't need them any more, what with cooking our food and using shoes.

Sorry no I am not joking. I do not believe that we are a product of evolution(note I am saying this is what I believe and not trying to put down what anyone else believes) I do believe in adaptation for the enviornment around but I don't think that is considered evolution.

 

[Laura]

Disagreeing with confirmed facts. Okay, well then there is nothing to discuss. We're not talking the same language.

I find that is often the case when discussing evolution with those who think it goes against their religion. They're willing to toss out whole categories of science and scientific evidence.

 

[Nomi]

Sorry no I am not joking. I do not believe that we are a product of evolution(note I am saying this is what I believe and not trying to put down what anyone else believes) I do believe in adaptation for the enviornment around but I don't think that is considered evolution.

Fair enough, I have no problem with personal beliefs, just with trying to pass of creationism as scientifically backed.

That said, what do you mean when you say adaption? Do you mean adaption in an individual or in a population? Because adaption in a population is what evolution is, to put it simply.

 

[Kath2003]

I find that is often the case when discussing evolution with those who think it goes against their religion. They're willing to toss out whole categories of science and scientific evidence.

I kind of get it, though. Imagine how scary it would be to put your whole life into worshipping something, basing your entire understanding of the world around it. It's beyond an emotional attachment, letting it go would involve the rethinking of EVERYTHING you know and understand to be true. That's hard for people to let go; it's scary to stand there emotionally cold and stripped naked of your understanding of the world, to learn a new way of life.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Disagreeing with confirmed facts. Okay, well then there is nothing to discuss. We're not talking the same language.

Nope, I do not feel like I am disagreeing with confirmed facts...
The above comments are cleary simply trying to paint me in a negative or ridiculous and closed minded light... This does not show any respect for the beliefs of others.

Please present some of these confirmed facts where there is empirical evidence of any organism or species changing/evolving into another.

How can I agree or disagree with (or throw out) facts that I do not know to exist???

PS: I have already acknowledged the ideas of adaptation, natural selection, etc...