 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
admin
Beloved Admin
Joined: 28 Sep 2000
Posts: 1815
Location: Macau, China
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Dust wrote: | admin,
Are you a theistic evolutionist or a atheistic evolutionist? |
Interesting question. Started responding and after 45 minutes realized I have much to say. Will work on that and get back to you.
_________________
Cybermonsters (Most Beloved Admin)
Favorite Octopus Video! - My Site - Studio
Have a question or need help with your account? E-mail: forum @ askland.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Scorp
Goldfish
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:02 pm Post subject: Re: What would it take for you to switch sides? |
|
|
| admin wrote: | | What would it take for you to switch sides on the Creation vs. Evolution debates? |
To me, they are the same. Diversity of life is the intention, Evolution is the mechanism.
I would never argue that the Bible holds any scientific superiority over what our five senses and highly evolved intelligence shows us. To me, that would be playing the fool for God. I'm sure that is not what God wants from me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Beloved Admin
Joined: 28 Sep 2000
Posts: 1815
Location: Macau, China
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Scorp, is it just diversity of life that is the intention? If so, then humans are not at the center of it? Do you think this contradicts scripture?
In using the word "Creationism" I assume it to mean that a designer had an intention and the human race is the point of it all (according to scripture).
_________________
Cybermonsters (Most Beloved Admin)
Favorite Octopus Video! - My Site - Studio
Have a question or need help with your account? E-mail: forum @ askland.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:09 am Post subject: Re: What would it take for you to switch sides? |
|
|
| admin wrote: | What would it take for you to switch sides on the Creation vs. Evolution debates?
I know many members here are well versed on specifics and can post specific things. For me, being an "evolutionist" (which changed after much reading), I trust mainstream science and do not consider it to be some evil inside organization. So I trust the scientific process and peer review to work itself out.
I post this partly because it's my favorite forum here, and not many posts lately... |
Seeing apes in various stages of gradually turning into human beings would be a good scientific process for even an non-scientist to witness the evidence.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | |
ROFL!!! I should have been specific.
Seeing those transitional forms concurrently living, existing, and evolving would be pretty good empirical evidence. Evolution wouldn't be a "theoretical exercise" any more.
How's that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're asking for something that the theory of evolution doesn't predict we'll observe for the ape to human transition. Or any multi-specie transition at all, really. This tactic is called a "strawman."
And it would still be a "theoretical exercise" because theories don't magically become "facts" at some point. The theory of evolution is the explanation for the fact of the variety of life on Earth. Explanations are always open and subject to change due to new evidence.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pete
Lion King
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 1019
Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
What would it take?
Well for starters, it would take scientific proof that matter can come into existence out of nothing. That matter is self-creating, but since it would be self-creating, there was no matter to start with, only a pure vacuum, not even the first atom, only endless nothingness.
Suddenly - BOOM - a whole universe appears in a microsecond, planets are spinning, there are nights and days, and now atoms form into living cells, and thinking beings, and chimpanzees, are walking upright, and starting to write atheistic books, and calling it science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bouncer
Alley Cat
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:32 am Post subject: Pete Pete Pete |
|
|
| Pete wrote: | What would it take?
Well for starters, it would take scientific proof that matter can come into existence out of nothing. That matter is self-creating, but since it would be self-creating, there was no matter to start with, only a pure vacuum, not even the first atom, only endless nothingness.
Suddenly - BOOM - a whole universe appears in a microsecond, planets are spinning, there are nights and days, and now atoms form into living cells, and thinking beings, and chimpanzees, are walking upright, and starting to write atheistic books, and calling it science. |
Admin was asking about Evolution not Astronomy.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1
Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer
"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pete wrote: | What would it take?
Well for starters, it would take scientific proof that matter can come into existence out of nothing. That matter is self-creating, but since it would be self-creating, there was no matter to start with, only a pure vacuum, not even the first atom, only endless nothingness.
Suddenly - BOOM - a whole universe appears in a microsecond, planets are spinning, there are nights and days, and now atoms form into living cells, and thinking beings, and chimpanzees, are walking upright, and starting to write atheistic books, and calling it science. |
Yeah what's that got to do with evolution?
Going with the classic "types of evolution" Hovind-style, then? Here's a hint: it's BS 
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | You're asking for something that the theory of evolution doesn't predict we'll observe for the ape to human transition. Or any multi-specie transition at all, really. This tactic is called a "strawman."
|
No, this is called - "Macro Evolution". And as far as I can tell no evolutionist mentioned an expiration date for Evolution to stop running and produce experimental transitional forms.
| FFT wrote: |
And it would still be a "theoretical exercise" because theories don't magically become "facts" at some point. The theory of evolution is the explanation for the fact of the variety of life on Earth. Explanations are always open and subject to change due to new evidence. |
That's why Evolution is (still) a theory. So why is it made to talk as a "fact", walk as a "fact", and quack as a "fact"???  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pete
Lion King
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 1019
Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: |
Yeah what's that got to do with evolution? |
OK, Then where, and and what point, does mindless evolution begin? Atheistic evolutionists want to have a nice orderly universe in place before evolution kicks in.
Evolution is based on the concept that mindless, random activity leads to a constant upward scale of complexity, and perfection. What law of physics works here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryck wrote: | | No, this is called - "Macro Evolution". And as far as I can tell no evolutionist mentioned an expiration date for Evolution to stop running and produce experimental transitional forms. |
I've yet to see anyone propose a barrier to microevolution causing macroevolution over time, have you?
And it's not that it's stopped, it's that for large organisms the time scales are too large to observe. And then when presented proof that it happens in microorganisms the response tends to be "but they're still bacteria."
| Ryck wrote: | | That's why Evolution is (still) a theory. So why is it made to talk as a "fact", walk as a "fact", and quack as a "fact"??? |
There is the fact of evolution: "populations change over time."
There is the theory of evolution: "populations have changed in this way over time in the past and for these reasons."
The fact is the observation. The theory is the explanation.
| Pete wrote: | | OK, Then where, and and what point, does mindless evolution begin? Atheistic evolutionists want to have a nice orderly universe in place before evolution kicks in. |
Who says the universe is orderly?
But evolution "kicked in" when imperfect replicators arose.
| Pete wrote: | | Evolution is based on the concept that mindless, random activity leads to a constant upward scale of complexity, and perfection. What law of physics works here? |
Natural selection isn't random. Evolution doesn't follow a "constant upward scale of complexity and perfection."
Basically, it's not surprising that you two have difficulty with the idea of "switching sides" when you don't understand what evolution actually states in the first place.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Ryck wrote: | | No, this is called - "Macro Evolution". And as far as I can tell no evolutionist mentioned an expiration date for Evolution to stop running and produce experimental transitional forms. |
I've yet to see anyone propose a barrier to microevolution causing macroevolution over time, have you?
|
No. I've seen evolutionists try to bridge the gap from microevolution to macroevolution without valid success.
| FFT wrote: |
And it's not that it's stopped, it's that for large organisms the time scales are too large to observe. And then when presented proof that it happens in microorganisms the response tends to be "but they're still bacteria."
|
Oh, you mean the idea that a biological imperative that required, for example, a pre-bat animal to develop wings in order to survive and those time scales are "too large to observe" the transitional examples of the pre-bat becoming a bat?
News flash: If the pre-bat and all the various stages of pre-bat took millions of years to develop wings to survive and prosper, and by some mysterious process none of those pre-bat fossils survived so we can see evolution in action, by the time the bat got wings he didn't need them to survive and prosper. LOL!
Ditto for the pre-giraffe to develop his giraffe neck.
Where are the transitional forms? There should be lots of them.
| FFT wrote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | That's why Evolution is (still) a theory. So why is it made to talk as a "fact", walk as a "fact", and quack as a "fact"??? |
There is the fact of evolution: "populations change over time."
There is the theory of evolution: "populations have changed in this way over time in the past and for these reasons."
The fact is the observation. The theory is the explanation.
|
That's microevolution. Sure, if a herd is chased by lions eventually the speed of the herd is improved because the slower ones would have served as meals for the lions and whatever genetic defect that made them slower would unlikely to have passed on to their offspring. But that improves the herd, doesn't change the herd into another species! LOL!
I said macroevolution, FFT. Yes, there is a difference. And I'm sure you know that.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryck wrote: | | No. I've seen evolutionists try to bridge the gap from microevolution to macroevolution without valid success. |
Then you aren't paying attention or have an arbitrary definition of macroevolution (something like "whatever evolutionary scientists haven't demonstrated yet). This is macroevolution.
| Ryck wrote: | | Oh, you mean the idea that a biological imperative that required, for example, a pre-bat animal to develop wings in order to survive and those time scales are "too large to observe" the transitional examples of the pre-bat becoming a bat? |
You were just asking for modern transitionals between species. What is it you want?
| Ryck wrote: | | News flash: If the pre-bat and all the various stages of pre-bat took millions of years to develop wings to survive and prosper, and by some mysterious process none of those pre-bat fossils survived so we can see evolution in action, by the time the bat got wings he didn't need them to survive and prosper. LOL! |
Bat bones are fragile and very thin, it's a wonder we've found any bat fossils at all. Not everything fossilizes. You understand this, right?
| Ryck wrote: | | Ditto for the pre-giraffe to develop his giraffe neck. |
The fossil record is a bit sparse on this but Samotherium was a pre-giraffe that was shorter. | TalkOrigins wrote: | | Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe. |
| Ryck wrote: | | Where are the transitional forms? There should be lots of them. |
Why?
| Ryck wrote: | | That's microevolution. Sure, if a herd is chased by lions eventually the speed of the herd is improved because the slower ones would have served as meals for the lions and whatever genetic defect that made them slower would unlikely to have passed on to their offspring. But that improves the herd, doesn't change the herd into another species! LOL! |
But there's nothing that would prevent the change from happening over time, is there.
| Ryck wrote: | | I said macroevolution, FFT. Yes, there is a difference. And I'm sure you know that. |
Sure. Here's the thing. When the terms micro- and macroevolution are used in a scientific setting, they are defined thus:
Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.
Macroevolution is any change at the species level or above (phyla, group, etc.).
Thing is, both happen. Both have been observed. Both work by the same processes, the only difference is time. This is why the terms aren't typically used by scientists--they're the same thing and it's a needless distinction.
When creationists use the term "microevolution" they seem to be referring to every observed change. When they use the term "macroevolution," they refer to that which we haven't observed or can't possibly expect to observe. Or even things that we have observed, but then they immediately class those as "microevolution."
This is, you see, dishonest.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
