Posted on 04/08/2010 8:07:40 AM PDT by christianhomeschoolmommaof3
And as I pointed out earlier, describing creationism as a myth no more disrespects it than describing the acts of Odin as mythical disrespects pagans.
I understand what evolution is. I also understand that the evidences for it are not there. Those who believe in it do so on faith.
You like quotes by supporters of creation so here is one for you by an evolution supporter.
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
I didn’t say that there was a problem with EVIDENCE. The problem is that we all have BIAS and we INTERPRET that evidence through our own worldview. That is why two scientists can look at the same evidence and reach two different conclusions.
“Are you skeptical of theories of galaxy formation and evolution as well?”
You would have to ask a more specific question. If you are using the word evolution to mean change then you must understand that I believe that things evolve (change). I do NOT believe that we have common ancestors with the other animals. I believe in special creation. There is alot of adaptation and change within the animal kingdom but you lose me when you start talking about pond scum becoming people so to speak.
This just isn't one of them... :-)
As I continue to point out to you. The school system had NO business saying anything about biblical creation and teaching it as untrue. They don’t want it taught in school then they should SHUT their mouths about it. They want it both ways.
You keep saying it is a myth but it is not. The Bible is true. I will keep saying the truth. Evolution is a myth. Plenty of people that have set out to disprove the Bible have become convinced of it’s truth because they took the time to research it. Why don’t you try to disprove it for yourself and see how that goes. Read some CS Lewis while you are at it.
”Evolution cannot be observed tested or repeated"
I have provided you numerous examples of studies that have tested and repeated evolution, but you ignore, and distort the evidence ultimately denying history, by repeating a statement that is incorrect.
I don’t know much about BeHe. I do know that he doesn’t want biblical creationism taught in school and that is what I said. He wants ID taught in school. ID says that design needs a designer. That isn’t biblical creationism.
I would like to see the tests and observation of one animal evolving into another. YOU confuse the terms. You substitute any change/adaptability in an animal and say oh look evolution. Evolution of one animal into another is not testable repeatable or observable. You take things that can be tested etc and extrapolate that beyond belief as ‘proof’ of goo to you evolution. You are doing the very thing you accuse me of doing.
I am sure we do. As a conservative, can you at least agree that the government has no right to teach children that their religion is untrue? That is the entire point of this article.
(I had an extra few minutes, wanted to reply to this one)
I've read The Great Divorce, the Space Trilogy, The Screwtape Letters, and the Chronicles of Narnia. Is that enough?
(BTW, Narnia is overrated and heavy-handed, IMHO. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is very much the superior work.)
Yikes, running late! Bye!
Love Narnia but LOR is better. We do agree on something ;).
It is obvious that you simply don’t understand the evolutionary theory.
You might want to pay close attention to the section regarding speciation.
Variations.
1. Variations exist with in all populations.
2. Some of that variation is heritable
3. Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.
4. Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via “Crossing over”
During meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pair on a chromosome.
5. Copying errors (mutations) can also arise; because the self-replication process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.
6. These recombination’s and errors produce a tendency for successfully increasing genetic divergence radiating outward from the initial state of the population.
Selection
7. Some of the heritable variations have an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.
8. Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organisms offspring that are able to reproduce in turn; tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.
9. Unrepresentative samplings which alters the relative frequency of the various alleles can occur in populations for reasons other than survival / reproduction advantages, a process known as” genetic drift”.
10. Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the “recipient” population.
Speciation
11. Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can “favor” different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
12. A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when sub-population acquires characteristics, which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternative population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.
Sufficiency
13. The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of initially similar life forms over time.
14. Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct form indirectly observed from the fossil record.
That’s what Evolution IS! If you have a problem with Evolution you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen points. Which one is it? Provide any evidence of any of the points that are incorrect.
While the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologist and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things – although there is not yet a consensus as to how to distinguish “living” from “non-living”
Evolution does NOT indicate that all variations are explained this way; that there are no other mechanisms by which variations may arise, be passed, or become prevalent; or that there is no other way life diversifies. Any and all of these may be valid topics for conjecture…but without evidence, they aren’t science.
Other peoples opinions presented in the form of quotes are not evidence against the theory of evolution. They are merely opinions, and all people have opinions, which turn out to be false. So lets stick to the facts.
I understand evolution. I understand that things that aren’t evolution are offered as proof of evolution. I understand that I wasn’t talking to you when I gave the quote. It was offered in retort to someone quoting Behe to me as an ID expert.
I don’t want or need to spend my time refuting you point by point. Speciation and natural selection are touted as the mechanism to goo to you evolution. It doesn’t make it true. I believe in speciation and natural selection. I don’t believe that I descended from a common ancestor with an ape and there is not proof to the contrary. In fact it is absurd.
Only the leftist statist Big Government Public School regime has the right to dictate from the central planning committee what the final word of all reality is to their comrades and to their comrade's children.
You refuse to refute the 14 points because you can’t.
It is very plain and simple the available evidence does not support your argument, so you ignore, and deny it hoping that will change the historical facts. This is a textbook example of an argument from personal incredulity
“The bible has proven to be true over and over.”
Parts of it have, that is a fact.
“You have no more proof that it is a myth, now, do you?”
I neither need nor do I want to prove the Bible a myth.
“To anyone who says the bible is a myth, I say look around you. Life and the earth is a miracle in itself. It didn’t happen by accident.”
Well said.
“I challenge that person to read the bible from cover to cover. It is just full of stuff that has already came true and especially now things are happening at an alarming rate and all of it is in Revelation.”
I think I know what you were trying to say there but your grammar got a bit loose. I believe however that an atheist would counter that Darwins holes do not prove that every ounce of the Bible is correct.
I usually counter those folks with a “better to be safe than sorry” argument.
No. There are a number of religions whose doctrines are flatly contradicted by modern science. As long as it's a public school, I don't want the government to teach any religious doctrine.
At this point, of course, you will reply that evolution is a religious doctrine. You would be wrong to do so, of course, but I suspect that won't stop you.
To sum it all up: stick to real science...and then implement a voucher program, and render the controversy moot.
By that logic, I better make sure I die with a sword in my hand so Odin sends me to Valhalla. Better to be safe than sorry, after all!
I didn’t bother to read your points because this thread isn’t about creation versus evolution and I really don’t care what you say or think. I didn’t have an argument from personal incredulity because I am not arguing with you. Have a nice day! I have better things to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.