Darwinism?

[touchingcloth]

Your argument might be more compelling if the consensus of science was "small scale change happens. In light of this, all organisms must share a common ancestor". You ignore the fact that there are multiple lines of evidence that support evolution.

No they do not all share a common ancestor.. That is an assumption based on micro-evolution and a few "so called" fossil links.. What they really reveal is a common designer..

Also evolution has never been seen to create any new information. It can resemble the information a bit via natural selection, but not create anything new..

I was challenging your assertion that the sole line of evidence for evolution is extrapolation from the fact that so-called microevolution takes place. If the common designer hypothesis is the more compelling interpretation of the evidence than the common ancestor hypothesis, then show how. Also, what observations would falsify the common designer hypothesis.

And evolution has been seen to create new information - genotypes and phenotypes.

Microevolution deals with changes in the gene pool of a single population. Macroevoution simply “considers” broad patterns of evolutionary change over long periods of time and includes the origin of new groups. But considering micro-evolution doesn't necessarily mean that it will lead to macroevolution or the creation on new species.

I'm still confused over where you'd place the boundary between micro and macro. Taking an example - assume for a moment that birds really did evolve from dinosaur ancestors. If the transition happened in baby steps, then when would you say that macroevolution had occurred? I imagine that the differences between any given dinosaur and its offspring you would call microevolution, likewise between any bird and its parent. So where would you place the line?

As a related question, is there a working definition for "species" that you are aware of that can classify every extant, extinct and potentially unknown creature into distinct categories?

Are you referring to the fruit fly experiment or debacle? Or perhaps in plants?

Nope. Just curious as to what definition of the term species you would go with.

Also the question of whether or not every creature was the product of a separate creation rather than a common ancestry is a good test for evolution. I'd imagine that there are statistical techniques able to assign a likelihood to the probability of, say, protein sequences between 2 species being the product of common ancestry vs separate ancestry.

Again that could also fall into a common designer technique as well.. What about HARs? Some of them are very different in humans than in chimps...

Again that's a question of statistics and modelling, isn't it? Given a set of similarities and differences and known methods of inheritance, does a common ancestor followed by mutations or multiple populations with separate origins fit the data best?

[eagle25c]

Alright everybody, get ready, get set, pile on. I am an atheist. Not only am I an atheist, but a former Christian that gave up my beliefs because of science and Kent Hovind. Basically every argument Hovind ever made against evolution was false or an out right lie. Now I see there are many more following in his foot steps making the same errors. Basically I do not believe in a 6 day creation, that Jonah spent 3 days in a big fish, that donkeys talk, Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt, Giant men, 900 year life spans, Noah putting two of every animal on an ark and so on. I do not believe that a belief in God is the basis for morality. Or in the new testatment with Jesus feeding the multitudes, Philip's teleportation and Lazarus coming back to life after he must of been very stinky.

I gave up any hope of Santa Claus at 10 (late bloomer) and gave up Christianity at 45 after years of study. I am not a scientist so those of you that want to trade graduate level arguments, I will not be able to participate. The great thing I find about science is that it is ok to say I do not know. So.... at this point in time no one knows, beyond speculation, what turned the switch from the inatimate to life. Unlike evolution, there is no plausible theory...yet. It could have been a random event, could have been God, or it could have been aliens or something else that has yet to be considered. Science has taken us to the point of permeable, but lifeless cells and creating protein building blocks. That's still not life. Considering that Newtonian physics is only 250 years old, Darwinain theory 150 thereabouts and Einstein's relativity at 100, I'll put my money on science coming up with a plausible theory or proof within the next 200 years. That's a bit too late for all of us.

As for evolution, well there are a number of posts that admit to microevolution. Well, sorry folks that is evolution. For those that want me to provide solid evidence, I say go read a couple of books and come back. The difference between micro and macro is the comfort food that keeps discussions like this going. By the way, regardless of how the switch got thrown for life and got DNA started, all evolution is explainable from that point. That means you "eye" people.

Now I realize that none of what I just wrote will change anyones mind. Please do not try to make a scientific argument against e.g. Ray Comfort's banana. I miss church and the friends I had there. Give me any proof for God and I'll call the Sunday school bus to come pick me up.

By the way, since this post is asking for hard evidence, would someone like to provide the hard evidence for Egypt enslaving the Jews or a great number of Jews spending 40 years in the desert? Does that evidence exist? Was Lilith or Eve the first woman, because clearly two were created. I wish I could go back to college and for every question on a test I did not know, I could fill in God and be right. It's too simple.

[Gman]

I was challenging your assertion that the sole line of evidence for evolution is extrapolation from the fact that so-called microevolution takes place. If the common designer hypothesis is the more compelling interpretation of the evidence than the common ancestor hypothesis, then show how. Also, what observations would falsify the common designer hypothesis.

So your claim is that macroevolution is falsifiable? Then show me how... The fact is neither views are "truly" falsifiable.. However, if we use evolution to falsify the ID view, all a scientist needs to do is knock the genes out within an organism, then go to a lab and try to grow the bug for a long time to see if it reproduces it. If it reproduces it, then ID would be proven false on the general grounds that the scientist didn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes would suffice.

But the common designer is really more simpler than that.. Instead of looking at something as being formed by random chance accidents, just look at it as being formed by a common designer.. Whales have 5 digits in their appendages, well so do humans.. Whales have two eyes and so do humans.. Etc..

And evolution has been seen to create new information - genotypes and phenotypes.

So prove it via macroevolution.. You can't.

I'm still confused over where you'd place the boundary between micro and macro. Taking an example - assume for a moment that birds really did evolve from dinosaur ancestors. If the transition happened in baby steps, then when would you say that macroevolution had occurred?

That's just an assumption.. Again.. Microevolution reveals adaptation. Is does not show species transforming itself into another one..

More here:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

I imagine that the differences between any given dinosaur and its offspring you would call microevolution, likewise between any bird and its parent. So where would you place the line?

Not exactly.. But that could be probable. The dinosaur is still a dinosaur and a bird is still a bird regardless of the "micro" changes... That doesn't prove marcoevolution by any means..

Nope. Just curious as to what definition of the term species you would go with.

I know where you are going with this... Interbreeding habits. Meaning that if a species doesn't interbreed with it's own species, then technically it's a new species.. Again that might fit the definition of a new species, but it is still the same species nonetheless with tweaked mating habits.

Also the question of whether or not every creature was the product of a separate creation rather than a common ancestry is a good test for evolution. I'd imagine that there are statistical techniques able to assign a likelihood to the probability of, say, protein sequences between 2 species being the product of common ancestry vs separate ancestry.

Such as?

Again that's a question of statistics and modelling, isn't it? Given a set of similarities and differences and known methods of inheritance, does a common ancestor followed by mutations or multiple populations with separate origins fit the data best?

Perhaps you could shed the light on that...

[Gman]

Alright everybody, get ready, get set, pile on. I am an atheist. Not only am I an atheist, but a former Christian that gave up my beliefs because of science and Kent Hovind. Basically every argument Hovind ever made against evolution was false or an out right lie.

This is an OEC site.. We don't support that crazy guy here either...

How I see there are many more following in his foot steps making the same errors. Basically I do not believe in a 6 day creation,

We don't either...

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

that Jonah spent 3 days in a big fish, that donkeys talk, Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt,

It's called a figure of speech in the Bible.. The Bible is an eastern book not a western one..

Giant men, 900 year life spans, Noah putting two of every animal on an ark and so on.

It's a local flood.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

I do not believe that a belief in God is the basis for morality.

Then you have your own morality.. You haven't given up your concept of authority, you just shift it to something else.. Like your science, sports, shopping, etc..

Or in the new testatment with Jesus feeding the multitudes, Philip's teleportation and Lazarus coming back to life after he must of been very stinky.

Well, then reject Christ then... Give it up.. No one here will stop you. Have your aliens do the teleportation then..

I gave up any hope of Santa Claus at 10 (late bloomer) and gave up Christianity at 45 after years of study.

Then you worship the god of chance.. Your Santa Claus that is also based on faith or absurd probabilities... It creates and destroys.. A god in itself.

I am not a scientist so those of you that want to trade graduate level arguments, I will not be able to participate. The great thing I find about science is that it is ok to say I do not know. So.... at this point in time no one knows, beyond speculation, what turned the switch from the inatimate to life. Unlike evolution, there is no plausible theory...yet. It could have been a random event, could have been God, or it could have been aliens or something else that has yet to be considered. Science has taken us to the point of permeable, but lifeless cells and creating protein building blocks. That's still not life. Considering that Newtonian physics is only 250 years old, Darwinain theory 150 thereabouts and Einstein's relativity at 100, I'll put my money on science coming up with a plausible theory or proof within the next 200 years. That's a bit too late for all of us.

No one knows? Then that's not science.. But if you want to take a leap of faith by all means enjoy it...

As for evolution, well there are a number of posts that admit to microevolution. Well, sorry folks that is evolution.

Again you are making the same mistake that others do.. Micro-evolution does not prove macroevolution.

For those that want me to provide solid evidence, I say go read a couple of books and come back. The difference between micro and macro is the comfort food that keeps discussions like this going. By the way, regardless of how the switch got thrown for life and got DNA started, all evolution is explainable from that point. That means you "eye" people.

I have read a number of books and all they have provided is speculation.. That isn't science.. It's a best guess.

Now I realize that none of what I just wrote will change anyones mind. Please do not try to make a scientific argument against e.g. Ray Comfort's banana. I miss church and the friends I had there. Give me any proof for God and I'll call the Sunday school bus to come pick me up.

Like the simple fact that we exist? An result of an accident?

By the way, since this post is asking for hard evidence, would someone like to provide the hard evidence for Egypt enslaving the Jews or a great number of Jews spending 40 years in the desert? Does that evidence exist? Was Lilith or Eve the first woman, because clearly two were created. I wish I could go back to college and for every question on a test I did not know, I could fill in God and be right. It's too simple.

There are many links on that just google it...

[CeT-To]

Not only am I an atheist, but a former Christian that gave up my beliefs because of science and Kent Hovind

HAHAHA LOL Kent Hodvind, i saw a video where he had a debate with Hugh Ross ...Kent is really something, i don't know how he goes around actually believing what he says X_X One thing that is strange is that some people give up Christianity without actually dwelling into it and asking question, they just believe what ever the next guy says (probs athiest) and then the person who is being asked why he has faith really does not have an answer. Correct me if im wrong but im pretty sure this happens a lot if you have a YEC and literal point of view for everything in the bible. By the way isn't Kent in prison right now? I think it was something about not paying his taxes.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I am an atheist.

Good. I hope you are a smart one. We have only been getting the angry-, supercilious- and pedant-atheists lately.

Not only am I an atheist, but a former Christian that gave up my beliefs because of science and Kent Hovind.

You were a «Christian» in name only. Once you are regenerated by the Holy Spirit there is no going back. In other words, you just traded one god for another. This is quite common.

Welcome.

FL

[eagle25c]

Hello Again,

I am not an angry atheist, Iill not claim to be overly intelligeny either. Just drawing my own conclusions from study and life experiences. But I want to answer some of the replies that I got from my first post.

First to Gman, thank you for a rational response. No six day creation, local flood, etc. I can buy that. I notice how you refer to 900 year olds, giants or living in a fish as a "figure of speech", do you know how many Christians would claim you cannot be a Christian if you do not read the old testament literally? Just like this site has asked for concrete evidence of evolution, I would like to get concrete theology that would be agreed by all Christians. I will not insist that you include the mormons since they believe that God and Jesus are flesh and live on the planet Kolbus. Pretty crazy huh?

I have not rejected one God in order to worship something else. That defies the very definition of worship. I will make up my own mind based on evidence presented and move on. I am open to changing my mind if I am wrong. When you say that not knowing isn't science? Well Gman you are wrong. Did Edison know the exact filament to make light bulb work on the first attempt? Humans always knew that lightning was powerful, but it took Franklin to first capture it and Faraday to understand it. Were all the experimnents and study in the mean time not science? We know that life began and are looking for how. That is science.

Micro doesn't equal macro. I cannot begin to address that. If I separate micro from macro then I will be playing on a field I chose not to. The entire macro vs micro is a Christian invention to maintain the discussion. If I mentioned the pelvis bone of a whale I would expect you to give the standard Christian answer.Historical human has only been around for 7,000 years. If you buy that the earth is billions of years old, what percentage of time is that? The scientific human has only been around for several hundred years and you want them to provide all the answers already? Also, I'll suggest your reading material is tilted towards your point of view. By the way, you may find reading about retro viruses fascinating.

The only anger I have is towards Furstentum. That was an arrogant and supercilious statement claiming that once converted by the Holy Spirit there is no going back. There are many more than myself and after all only myself and God knows for sure.

It sounds like my theology was similar to that on this site. I began my search when at aback yard church barbecue some one was talking about the earth being 6,000 years old and I responded saying that if that were true the sky would be dark at night because the light of the stars would not have reached us yet. At that point a friend of mine put his arms around my shoulders and walked me to a different part of the yard. This same friend started to provide me Kent Hovind tapes which I initially found fascinating but opened the flood gates to my studying big bang, evolution, etc. The first thing I rejected was bible literalism. And if the Bible isn't literal than what is fact and what isn't. The same friend that believed the earth is 6,000 years old believes that the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical.HUH! You cannot have it both ways. How can Christians tolerate idiots like Ken Hamm, Todd Freil, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron and the list goes on. I love listening to Joyce Meier and Joel Osteen, but there is absolutely nothing biblical in what they present. Is the Catholic Church or Luther right. Logically it is easy to write off the other religions of the world. I still find the basic theology of Christians the easiest to digest in that man has turned from God and requires redemption. I think a fourth grader could have written a story better than Adam and Eve to explain this. If the omnipotent, omniscient God cannot lay down a clear road map, than I will continue to beleive that Christianity is the invention of man rather than the redemptive plan of an all powerful God. If my eternal damnation is the price for this opinion than at least I hope I get to roast next to samuel Clemens and we can talk in between writhing in pain.

By the way, modern Christian morality is great .It is the mental health of Christians worrynig about whatGod wants I find toublesom. Finally, I am currently in trouble withthe IRS. If I pray the prayer of redemption and ask Christ to re enter my heart and then I sow my last $500.00 and pray real hard, will the bank send me a check for $10,000 out of no where? I think I'm getting back on the bus.

[August]

By the way, you may find reading about retro viruses fascinating.

What about them?

[DannyM]

Hey eagle25c,

I notice how you refer to 900 year olds...

Why is it so unbelievable that people lived a lot longer back then? What are you basing your incredulity on?

I will make up my own mind based on evidence presented and move on. I am open to changing my mind if I am wrong. When you say that not knowing isn't science?

And what evidence have you come across that disproves or negates God?

Micro doesn't equal macro. I cannot begin to address that. If I separate micro from macro then I will be playing on a field I chose not to.

So you choose not to confront the issue of 'macroevolution'? Is this what you would otherwise describe as burying your head in the sand?

The entire macro vs micro is a Christian invention to maintain the discussion. If I mentioned the pelvis bone of a whale I would expect you to give the standard Christian answer.Historical human has only been around for 7,000 years. If you buy that the earth is billions of years old, what percentage of time is that? The scientific human has only been around for several hundred years and you want them to provide all the answers already? Also, I'll suggest your reading material is tilted towards your point of view. By the way, you may find reading about retro viruses fascinating.

A Christian invention? 7,000 years? And what of your reading material? Is that not tilted towards your own point of view?

It sounds like my theology was similar to that on this site.

If I pray the prayer of redemption and ask Christ to re enter my heart and then I sow my last $500.00 and pray real hard, will the bank send me a check for $10,000 out of no where?[/quote]

It sounds to me like your theology was positively anathema to this site

The only anger I have is towards Furstentum. That was an arrogant and supercilious statement claiming that once converted by the Holy Spirit there is no going back. There are many more than myself and after all only myself and God knows for sure.

Fürstentum Liechtenstein is more than capable of answering for himself, but do you seriously imagine you had the Holy Spirit prior to your conversion to atheism? And if you did have the Holy Spirit, what changed? What truths became non-truths? And why did you believe those truths to begin with?

[eagle25c]

DannyM,

You're the one that wanted a polite exchange. Let's keep it that way. I should be working but this is more interesting. Why is it hard to believe that people lived allot longer, because there is no proof other than the STORIES in the Bible. I do not think that qualifies as incredulous. I am not interested in disproving God and I will gladly sign on if you can prove him. That would be logic 101. Again, Macroevolution is your issue, and I hate sand in my nose, so no ostrich act here. Until I am sourced otherwise I will believe that macro evolution is a Christian invention. I read and continue to enjoy reading apologetics and Christian rebutals of evolution. Would you like me to send a reading list of secular evolution author's?

DannyM, I'm sorry you did not recognize that my tounge was planted firmly in my cheek with the sowing statement, on the other hand, How many late night tv evangelist would tell me to pray hard and mail in the check.I am sure that FL is more than capable also, but he is claiming a knowledge that is not biblical or knowable, a very unchristian thing to do.

My story of the beginning of my deconversion was told in truth and I hope your last question was asked honestly. What changed? It started with the rejection of Bible literalism caused by Bible literalist. By the way I was never a literalist. It then turned to the rejection/folly, not that I ever believed, of the other religions of the world. Hindu, Islam, Morman, wicka etc. I then re read most of the old testament from a non believers perspective and realized the God of the old testament was a pretty great God if you were a Jew, but a terrible nasty God if you were anyone else. I know that's over simplified but I do have to get back to work. Finally, If I rejected the Gods of of the ancient world, the other religions of the modern world, if I rejected most of the old testament. The only thing left was the resurection. There's a whole pile of theology there too. But after thirty years of being a Christian I rejected that also. It's hard for me to write that even now. So that's the thumbnail version and again I hope we can keep this friendly.

[Byblos]

By the way, you may find reading about retro viruses fascinating.

What about them?

Don't you love when they parade that around as if it's their trump card? And those are the ones that turn out to know the least about ERVs.

[Byblos]

I am not interested in disproving God and I will gladly sign on if you can prove him. That would be logic 101.

Then perhaps you need to brush up on your logic and philosophy because both dictate a creator.

[eagle25c]

Pardon me August,

Retro viruses like DNA leave a trail that be be traced through multiple generations. For instance humans and orangutans share a retro virus that would be impossible if we did not share a common ancestor at some point. I am not a scientist , but I find that compelling evidence.

[DannyM]

You're the one that wanted a polite exchange. Let's keep it that way.

Huh? I was actually being rather polite. My tone is certainly no more incredulous than yours. As a matter of fact, this thread is asking some questions of Darwinian evolution: you have not once addressed this...

Why is it hard to believe that people lived allot longer, because there is no proof other than the STORIES in the Bible. I do not think that qualifies as incredulous.

So tell me on what basis you believe it to be a STORY and not truth? Are you merely incredulous (note: incredulous = unwilling or unable to believe) based on man's average life age today?

I am not interested in disproving God and I will gladly sign on if you can prove him. That would be logic 101. Again, Macroevolution is your issue, and I hate sand in my nose, so no ostrich act here. Until I am sourced otherwise I will believe that macro evolution is a Christian invention. I read and continue to enjoy reading apologetics and Christian rebutals of evolution. Would you like me to send a reading list of secular evolution author's?

Oh no! You just asked me to prove God!! Let me get this straight: are you saying that Christians made up 'macroevolution'?

It started with the rejection of Bible literalism caused by Bible literalist. By the way I was never a literalist. It then turned to the rejection/folly, not that I ever believed, of the other religions of the world. Hindu, Islam, Morman, wicka etc. I then re read most of the old testament from a non believers perspective and realized the God of the old testament was a pretty great God if you were a Jew, but a terrible nasty God if you were anyone else. I know that's over simplified but I do have to get back to work. Finally, If I rejected the Gods of of the ancient world, the other religions of the modern world, if I rejected most of the old testament. The only thing left was the resurection. There's a whole pile of theology there too. But after thirty years of being a Christian I rejected that also. It's hard for me to write that even now. So that's the thumbnail version and again I hope we can keep this friendly.

Of course, and thanks for your honesty. I guess the only thing I can do is ask you to stick around, read over the site, and read 'Rich Deem's' articles from the main page. Your rejection is somewhat understandable if you were exposed to Young Earth Creationism. But, and if you don't mind me asking, did you not seek out Old Earth Creationism? If you have a particular topic on your mind, then use the bar at the top right for an internal search, and the chances are you'll get your answer.

Danny

[eagle25c]

DannyM,

I found this site just yesterday and posted a response after only reading the first page of the thread. I will go back and read other postings and if I have anything half intelligent to add I will. I will also read the Deem's articles and we can discuss at a later time. As for the long life question, please do not ever use the Bible to prove the Bible or I will go away. That's a Forrest Gump stupid is as stupid does move. Just as you are requesting proof for evolution, I would ask for proof for long lived humans and as far as I know there is none. If that makes me incredulous so be it.

Basic logic dictates that you need to prove God and not for me to disprove. I am open. Yes, I am saying that macro evolution is a Christian invention. Source me to a secular site not replying to a Christian question that uses the term macro evolution and I will admit I'm wrong and change my mind.