Evolution

[Farsight one]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1623361' date='Aug 10 2008, 10:00 AM']Yes, it's compatible with the Church's teachings if God did it.
No, there's no sufficient scientific evidence to believe it so no one should bother.[/quote]
Why do people keep saying that there isn't sufficient evidence when evolution has been DIRECTLY OBSERVED hundreds of times over?

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1623495' date='Aug 10 2008, 12:24 PM']Why do people keep saying that there isn't sufficient evidence when evolution has been DIRECTLY OBSERVED hundreds of times over?[/quote]

Breeding fruit-flies through multiple generations and getting a different variety of the same thing isn't evolution, at least not on the quack scale that some people are pushing it to be. There has been and there never will be an observable evidence of a newt becoming a lion or a polar bear becoming a penguin over multiple mutations. When Darwin came up with that quack theory, there wasn't even sufficient knowledge of the cell. When that came, so did the death of the legitimacy of the theory of evolution. Richard Dawkins and the like can't even give a viable explanation besides putting together a few "suppose this"s and "imagine that"s and with a slight of hand, some smoke and mirrors, voila! The theory of evolution is "proven". The theory of evolution has never been proven, and if so, why is there still an ongoing debate? The only way it's still going is because those who need it to be true to push their wacky view of the universe on us want it to keep going on until those who have the brains and the courage to fight it just sit down and shut up, which isn't going to happen.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1626606' date='Aug 14 2008, 12:51 AM']Breeding fruit-flies through multiple generations and getting a different variety of the same thing isn't evolution, at least not on the quack scale that some people are pushing it to be.[/quote]First of all, fruit flys are only one tiny example. Second, you're talking about the difference between mIcro and mAcro evolution, right? Unfortunately, this is only one of scale. Saying that mIcroevolution is possible but mAcroevolution is not is akin to saying it's possible to walk a meter but not a kilometer. If you start walking meters, eventually, you will have walked a kilometer unless some outside force stops you. Likewise, if changes occur on a mIcro scale, eventually, they will appear on a mAcro scale unless some outside force stops it.

[quote]There has been and there never will be an observable evidence of a newt becoming a lion or a polar bear becoming a penguin over multiple mutations.[/quote]This is an amusing statement every time I hear it because if a newt ever did begat a lion or a polar bear begat a penguin, that would throw evolutionary theory completely into question. And I don't mean they'd have to rework it to make things fit. I mean they'd pretty much have to throw it out the window and start looking into concepts similar to intelligent design. So you say it'll never happen, but really, you should be hoping that it does.

[quote]When Darwin came up with that quack theory, there wasn't even sufficient knowledge of the cell.[/quote]It might shock you to learn this, but Darwin didn't actually come up with it. In fact, Origin of Species mentions it only once. In reality, the general concept of evolution has been around since before the birth of Christ.

[quote]When that came, so did the death of the legitimacy of the theory of evolution. Richard Dawkins and the like can't even give a viable explanation besides putting together a few "suppose this"s and "imagine that"s and with a slight of hand, some smoke and mirrors, voila![/quote]And now I must say that it is obvious you know nothing about evolution. for one, with comprehension of the cell came mounds upon mounds of evidence that actually supports evolution. For another reason, there are no suppositions when it comes to evolution. It is tested and understood like any and every other scientific theory. Though, we are probably like minded in our dislike of Dawkins.

[quote]The theory of evolution is "proven". The theory of evolution has never been proven, and if so, why is there still an ongoing debate?[/quote]That is a question you should be asking yourself - why IS there an ongoing debate? That's because people up and decided one day that hundreds of thousands of scientists who have devoted their entire lives to understanding biology, geology, and the like, aren't as credible as average Joe high school graduate's personal comprehension of a small portion of less than a percent of the total data on the subject.

You listen to the experts on theology. You listen to the experts on chemistry. You lisen to the experts on mathematics. You listen to the experts on literature. Why, all of a sudden, do you decide that the experts in biology should be not only rejected, but accused of intentional disinformation and inflation of facts but continue to accept the words of the experts in pretty much every single other school of knowledge on the entire planet?

[quote]The only way it's still going is because those who need it to be true to push their wacky view of the universe on us want it to keep going on until those who have the brains and the courage to fight it just sit down and shut up, which isn't going to happen.[/quote]Now I'm not saying you're stupid, but clearly, when it comes to evolution, it is not brains you are using to fight it. One only needs to give a casual read to your post to know that it is emotion that drives you in regards to evolution. And courage? Be careful not to confuse that with being stubborn. I used to do that quite a bit.

Be honest with yourself - how can you possibly believe that something is wrong when you know almost nothing about it? Doesn't it frustrate you when anti-Catholics try and tell you your beliefs are wrong when they don't even understand them? And if so, how can you consider yourself fair minded when you do the exact same thing to evolutionists?

Edited August 14, 2008 by Farsight one

[pan!c139]

I believe evolving is compatible and is scientifically proved. But not evolution.

God had a plan for us, and that was not to start out as monkeys. We were always human beings, nothing less. Animals have no free will, and act purely by instinct. We, however, can choose between right and wrong and can control our desires.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='pan!c139' post='1626635' date='Aug 14 2008, 02:22 AM']I believe evolving is compatible and is scientifically proved. But not evolution.

God had a plan for us, and that was not to start out as monkeys. We were always human beings, nothing less. Animals have no free will, and act purely by instinct. We, however, can choose between right and wrong and can control our desires.[/quote]I'm a little confused at the "we were always human beings" line. You're saying "we were always us". Yes. Of course, humans have always been humans. I guess I just don't understand the point you're trying to make.

And fyi - evolutionary theory doesn't state that we evolved from monkies. It says we share a common anscestor with apes.

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1626654' date='Aug 14 2008, 03:52 AM']I'm a little confused at the "we were always human beings" line. You're saying "we were always us". Yes. Of course, humans have always been humans. I guess I just don't understand the point you're trying to make.

And fyi - evolutionary theory doesn't state that we evolved from monkies. It says we share a common anscestor with apes. [/quote]

And some of us are more Ape then others! LOL!

I am not a Genetic Mutation, an accident!

[pan!c139]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1628314' date='Aug 15 2008, 04:40 PM']And some of us are more Ape then others! LOL!

I am not a Genetic Mutation, an accident![/quote]

Amen to that!


The "we were always humans" means that we didn't evolve from something less human...nor do I believe that monkeys came from the "same ancestor"...

[cmotherofpirl]

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

The controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Evolutionary theories have been used to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life, and man. These may be referred to as cosmological evolution, biological evolution, and human evolution. One’s opinion concerning one of these areas does not dictate what one believes concerning others.

People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone.

Related to the question of how the universe, life, and man arose is the question of when they arose. Those who attribute the origin of all three to special creation often hold that they arose at about the same time, perhaps six thousand to ten thousand years ago. Those who attribute all three to atheistic evolution have a much longer time scale. They generally hold the universe to be ten billion to twenty billion years old, life on earth to be about four billion years old, and modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand years old. Those who believe in varieties of developmental creation hold dates used by either or both of the other two positions.


The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.


The Time Question

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).

It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account—a chronological reading and a topical reading.


Chronological Reading

According to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order. This view is often coupled with the claim that the six days were standard 24-hour days.

Some have denied that they were standard days on the basis that the Hebrew word used in this passage for day (yom) can sometimes mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Genesis 2:4). However, it seems clear that Genesis 1 presents the days to us as standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night. Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account.

That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).


The Topical Reading

This leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.

The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was "formless and empty" (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different aspects of the environment.

On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form.

But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.


Real History

The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).

It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.


Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).


Science and Religion

The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp[/url]

[MakeYouThink]

Nice article,

But I am not a Genetic Mutation, an accident. God molded me with his own hands, and will continue to mold every human being with his own hands from now to the end of eternity.

Remember, one of the statements of the Bible not discussed with your article is it says all things mate and have children with their own kind. If were an 'evolved' Ape, why can't we have children with them?

Camels can with Lamas, and Wolves can breed with Dogs, horses with donkeys, but we can't have genetic offspring with Apes?

[Farsight one]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1628550' date='Aug 15 2008, 11:04 PM']Nice article,

But I am not a Genetic Mutation, an accident. God molded me with his own hands, and will continue to mold every human being with his own hands from now to the end of eternity.[/quote]Pardon, but where does evolution say you are an accident? Last I checked it made no claims either way. Whether made from dirt or made through evolution, God made you with a purpose. It's not how you're made. It's that you were made at all that tells you you have a purpose.

[quote]Remember, one of the statements of the Bible not discussed with your article is it says all things mate and have children with their own kind. If were an 'evolved' Ape, why can't we have children with them?[/quote]Well, we didn't evolve directly out of apes for one thing. What you're doing is taking the bible's meaning of "kind" and applying it to evolution. It doesn't work that way. Evolution doesn't even use the word "kind".

[quote]Camels can with Lamas, and Wolves can breed with Dogs, horses with donkeys, but we can't have genetic offspring with Apes?[/quote]Believe it or not, but I saw a special on tv once that suggests that we can. (ew) Evidence for this was an ape creature that a family had been taking care of for years. It walked upright like humans - chimps can do this, but it is painful and hard and this one walked upright 24/7. In fact, it's bone structure was different from a normal chimp's. And the kicker is that it had 47 chromosomes. Since a human parent would pass on 23 and a chimp(or any other ape for that matter) would pass on 24, that comes out to 47 - strongly suggesting that a chimp and a human mated. It really appeared to be a human/ape/thing. It smoked, ate dinner at the table with utensils, was more attracted to human women than chimps, but still couldn't talk and looked mostly like a chimp. I hope that never happens again, but it is interesting. (and fyi - they showed plenty of video footage of the actual ape - this is not some bigfoot style rumor)

[lilac_angel]

Who's to say that religion wasn't part of God's evolutionary plan? Who's to say that evolution wasn't part of God's plan? Religion came as a byproduct of human evolution, if you're looking at it through a purely evolutionary perspective. We of course know it to be more, but still.

Ironically, Dawkins believes that we should get rid of religion when it has in fact proven to be part of our evolutionary heritage. Religion came along with our evolved natures. If it wasn't helpful or beneficial to the human race to be religious, it would have been phased out by now.

It's also been proven that religious people live longer and happier lives. Oh, and are more favorable to carrying offspring!

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1626632' date='Aug 14 2008, 01:59 AM']First of all, fruit flys are only one tiny example. Second, you're talking about the difference between mIcro and mAcro evolution, right? Unfortunately, this is only one of scale. Saying that mIcroevolution is possible but mAcroevolution is not is akin to saying it's possible to walk a meter but not a kilometer. If you start walking meters, eventually, you will have walked a kilometer unless some outside force stops you. Likewise, if changes occur on a mIcro scale, eventually, they will appear on a mAcro scale unless some outside force stops it.

[color="#FF0000"]Yes, I'm familiar with the terms micro and macro evolution. The point I'm trying to make by not using those terms is playing into the pro-evolutionist agenda to try to legitimize something by compartmentalizing it (you know, the way liberals always do). Getting a different variety of the same thing isn't evolution, that's just one of the many subtle pieces of evidence that speaks of someone bigger than all of us holding the reigns to the universe (and that someone happens to be smart enough to help its creatures adapt to a changing environment). Did I say that evolution was impossible? No, I did not; stop putting words in my mouth. It's possible that instead of two people expressing their love for each other (preferably in marriage) being sufficient for the creation of a child, several other different factors in other dimensions along with the bipersonal act of procreating helps that along, but there's no reason to believe it. Your following analogy means just about nothing since it's a play on something that I didn't say. I'd advise you to actually stick to what's said to make a viable argument.[/color]

This is an amusing statement every time I hear it because if a newt ever did begat a lion or a polar bear begat a penguin, that would throw evolutionary theory completely into question. And I don't mean they'd have to rework it to make things fit. I mean they'd pretty much have to throw it out the window and start looking into concepts similar to intelligent design. So you say it'll never happen, but really, you should be hoping that it does.

[color="#FF0000"]Am I seeing this correctly? It seems that you've forgotten the theory of evolution altogether. Your beloved view of the origin of the species claims that the animals and plants that we see today, including ourselves are here due to a series of random mutations that occured over aeons. The trait continued in the species provided that the mutations actually caused the animal or plant to be more fit to survive than the others. I never spoke of a newt begetting a linor or a polar bear begetting a penguin. When I say "become", you should know that I'm referring to the theory that YOU hold to. Is it possible that you could stay to what's actually said and stop putting words in my mouth?[/color]

It might shock you to learn this, but Darwin didn't actually come up with it. In fact, Origin of Species mentions it only once. In reality, the general concept of evolution has been around since before the birth of Christ.

[color="#FF0000"]The general concept of evolution..."micro" or "macro"? There have been civilizations and cultures throughout time who have practiced eugenics while not even knowing the technicalities or mechanics of it. They just noticed that the offspring tended to resemble their parents and that certain traits passed on from parents to offspring. If you're referring to [i]that[/i] as the "general concept of evolution", that's not what Darwin was pushing. I have a hard time believing that these ancient people believed that species evolved into other ones through random mutations in traits.[/color]

And now I must say that it is obvious you know nothing about evolution. for one, with comprehension of the cell came mounds upon mounds of evidence that actually supports evolution. For another reason, there are no suppositions when it comes to evolution. It is tested and understood like any and every other scientific theory. Though, we are probably like minded in our dislike of Dawkins.

[color="#FF0000"]And now, [i]NOW[/i] you [i]must[/i] say this? Wow, I'm invisioning a little boy standing in front of me with his hands on
his hips, his tongue out, blowing a raspberry, and then saying "YOU DON'T KNOW [i]ANYTHING[/i]!" in a shrill, little, prepubescent voice. There's mounds of evidence for evolution that came with comprehension of the cell? Really, when they found all of the little complex organelles and discovered the functions of them all and discovered the complexity and confounding density of information that's stored in the deoxyribonucleic acid in the nucleus, they found some way for random mutation of a trait that may or MAY NOT cause the animal or plant to have an advantage over others of its kind and for that trait to continue and for more to happen until it becomes something else completely over the space of hundreds of thousands of years?

And there's no supposition in this at all? [i]AT ALL??[/i]

This is a quote from Richard Dawkins' book [i]Climbing Mount Improbable[/i], I'll speak on the bolded portions after:

"To begin with, an ancestor like an ordinary squirrel, living up trees without any special gliding mebrane, leaps across short gaps. [It could jumpt a bit farther with a flap of skin to provide resistance.] So [b]natural selection favors [/b]individuals with slightly pouchy skin around the arm or leg joints, and this becomes the norm. . . . Now any individuals with an even larger skin web can leap a few inches further. So in later generatns this extension of skin becomes the norm, and so on. . . . [b]It is possible that true flying[/b], as seen in bats, birds, and pterosaurs, [b]evolved from gliding ancestors like these.[/b] Most of these animals can control their direction and speed of their glide so as to land at a predetermined spot. [b]It is easy to imagine true flapping flight evolving from repetition of muscular movements used to control glide direction[/b], so average time to landing is gradually postponed over evolutionary time."

In this first bolded portion, Dawkins uses what is known in the English language as pathetic fallacy. Pathetic fallacy if the attatchment of an interior human ablitity (emotion, thought) to something innanimate. Natural selection is claimed by the theory of evolution to be the cause of random mutation in a species to have a trait that will make an individual better off or worse off than his peers. How can a nontangible entity "favor" something without first having the mind to favor it? The language he uses here, to me, smacks of an intelligent creator, but you keep on thinking what you're thinking!

The second and the third both basically say the same thing, the thing that you said evolutionists didn't say: IMAGINE! Imagine that species pop up out of other ones over long periods of time due to random mutation! Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try. . . . and so on. Hows that for hard, cold fact?[/color]

That is a question you should be asking yourself - why IS there an ongoing debate? That's because people up and decided one day that hundreds of thousands of scientists who have devoted their entire lives to understanding biology, geology, and the like, aren't as credible as average Joe high school graduate's personal comprehension of a small portion of less than a percent of the total data on the subject.

[color="#FF0000"]No, that's not why there's an ongoing debate. The reason that there's an ongoing debate within the scientific community is just that: Scientists can't agree. The matter isn't settled. There's evidence against evolution and these liberal blowhards are just trying to keep it going until their opponents all just shut up, but that's not how the war of ideas works. You get your evidence and you get you word in and you go on from there. All these evolutionists want to do is push their agenda and shut their opponents up, that’s it. [/color]

You listen to the experts on theology. You listen to the experts on chemistry. You lisen to the experts on mathematics. You listen to the experts on literature. Why, all of a sudden, do you decide that the experts in biology should be not only rejected, but accused of intentional disinformation and inflation of facts but continue to accept the words of the experts in pretty much every single other school of knowledge on the entire planet?

[color="#FF0000"]I don’t have any problem with experts on biology. I have a problem with experts on biology who have an agenda that pushes evidence and reason aside and calls their opponents “religious nuts”, “stupid”, and the like. Besides, I don’t accept the word of EVERY “expert” in every other school of knowledge on the entire planet. You have no idea what exactly I believe or stand for, so I’d suggest you keep to what’s written here and stop making rash statements. You’re only hurting your own argument. [/color]

Now I'm not saying you're stupid, but clearly, when it comes to evolution, it is not brains you are using to fight it. One only needs to give a casual read to your post to know that it is emotion that drives you in regards to evolution. And courage? Be careful not to confuse that with being stubborn. I used to do that quite a bit.

[color="#FF0000"]Stubborn? Okay, you can make the argument that some “average Joe”, cranky conservative arguing with you is stubborn. I am. I refuse to believe that evolution is true, though my stubbornness isn't a baseless one. The fuel of my stubbornness isn't emotion, but convictions through reason. Do you realize that there are many experts who have risen to prominence in their schools and their fields of study that have been fired, ridiculed, and denied tenure because of their disbelief in evolution? Are you willing to call them stubborn when they lose the respect of their peers and their livelihood? [/color]

Be honest with yourself - how can you possibly believe that something is wrong when you know almost nothing about it? Doesn't it frustrate you when anti-Catholics try and tell you your beliefs are wrong when they don't even understand them? And if so, how can you consider yourself fair minded when you do the exact same thing to evolutionists?

[color="#FF0000"]I'll tell you what's frustrating: being called stupid under the guise of not being called such, having words put in my mouth, and not being given the benefit of the doubt that I can hold my own in an argument by someone who's basically playing patty-cake with me. Why can't you come back at me with some real ammo? That's what I want. I don't want to be dismissed as someone without logic, without intelligence, and without evidence. If this is how you argue, then I'd be highly surprised to know of any argument that you've legitimately won or a mind that you've changed.[/color][/quote]

Edited August 16, 2008 by iheartjp2

[princessgianna]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1615483' date='Aug 1 2008, 09:18 PM']Hey everyone,
I've heard varying viewpoints, and I'd like to hear your views.
Do you think evolution is compatible with the Church's teachings? Why or why not?
PAX,
Mitch[/quote]

Hey everyone

I did not do the survey because I am not
sure on what they mean. Let me explain!
Does the survey, when it says 'evolution' means that we were some dust in space just floating around
and by pure coincidence that dust formed over billions of years and here we are by that coincidence!(Extreme Darwin's theory)
or that, through time since God made man (Genesis! whether as we did begin as dust in space or not) over the years man has evolved to what you see in the mirror? I don't know!

I do believe however that man did evolved over the years! A grown man in Jesus' time was roughly 5 feet (and that was tall) now for a grown man it is closer to 6 feet.
I also believe that God made man. Now HOW God made man (going back to being dust floating in space) I am not sure of. And only time will tell.

The Church (and PLEASE correct me if I am wrong) has said on this issue that The Evolution Idea
is actually a pretty good one AS LONG AS IT BEGINS WITH GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

~*~Pax~*~

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='princessgianna' post='1629265' date='Aug 16 2008, 10:20 PM']Hey everyone

I did not do the survey because I am not
sure on what they mean. Let me explain!
Does the survey, when it says 'evolution' means that we were some dust in space just floating around
and by pure coincidence that dust formed over billions of years and here we are by that coincidence!(Extreme Darwin's theory)
or that, through time since God made man (Genesis! whether as we did begin as dust in space or not) over the years man has evolved to what you see in the mirror? I don't know!

I do believe however that man did evolved over the years! A grown man in Jesus' time was roughly 5 feet (and that was tall) now for a grown man it is closer to 6 feet.
I also believe that God made man. Now HOW God made man (going back to being dust floating in space) I am not sure of. And only time will tell.

The Church (and PLEASE correct me if I am wrong) has said on this issue that The Evolution Idea
is actually a pretty good one AS LONG AS IT BEGINS WITH GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

~*~Pax~*~[/quote]

You're absolutely right. The Church has spoken on the matter and said that evolution does not pose an opposition to the faith so long as God is believed to be the author of such a phenomenon and that man has always had a human soul and free will apart from the other creatures. I personally don't believe such a phenomenon has occured, but I leave anyone and everyone up to themselves to choose whether or not to believe it.

[Farsight one]

[color="#2E8B57"]Yes, I'm familiar with the terms micro and macro evolution. The point I'm trying to make by not using those terms is playing into the pro-evolutionist agenda to try to legitimize something by compartmentalizing it (you know, the way liberals always do). Getting a different variety of the same thing isn't evolution,...[/color]

Pardon, but YES IT IS evolution. The definition of evolution is "the change in allele frequencies over time". After only one generation, allele frequencies change - every time. You need to stop redefining evolution to support your argument. It is not evolutionists who try to legitimize things by compartmentalizing it. We don't want it compartmentalized. It is the creationists who are doing so by saying that x amount of change in y amount of time is possible, but 2x amount of change in 2y amount of time is not. If anyone's twisting anything here, it is most certainly you and all the other creationists who choose to repeatedly redefine evolution, micro, macro, trasitional, etc, etc, etc to support their arguments.

[color="#2E8B57"]Did I say that evolution was impossible? No, I did not; stop putting words in my mouth.[/color]

So you don't think mAcro evolution is impossible?

[color="#2E8B57"]It's possible that instead of two people expressing their love for each other (preferably in marriage) being sufficient for the creation of a child, several other different factors in other dimensions along with the bipersonal act of procreating helps that along, but there's no reason to believe it.[/color]

You create a false dichotomy when you try and make the choice between evolution and religion.

[color="#2E8B57"]Am I seeing this correctly? It seems that you've forgotten the theory of evolution altogether. Your beloved view of the origin of the species claims that the animals and plants that we see today, including ourselves are here due to a series of random mutations that occured over aeons. The trait continued in the species provided that the mutations actually caused the animal or plant to be more fit to survive than the others. I never spoke of a newt begetting a linor or a polar bear begetting a penguin. When I say "become", you should know that I'm referring to the theory that YOU hold to. Is it possible that you could stay to what's actually said and stop putting words in my mouth?[/color]

Pardon, but I don't know what you're talking about because newts [i]don't[/i] become lions and polar bears [i]don't[/i] become penguins - even over aeons. So maybe it's you who don't understand what evolution is. Again.

[color="#2E8B57"]The general concept of evolution..."micro" or "macro"? There have been civilizations and cultures throughout time who have practiced eugenics while not even knowing the technicalities or mechanics of it. They just noticed that the offspring tended to resemble their parents and that certain traits passed on from parents to offspring. If you're referring to that as the "general concept of evolution", that's not what Darwin was pushing. I have a hard time believing that these ancient people believed that species evolved into other ones through random mutations in traits.[/color]

That was exactly my point - that while ancient societies knew nothing of DNA or genetics, they did know that traits were passed on and believed that humans developed in this way over time.

[color="#2E8B57"]There's mounds of evidence for evolution that came with comprehension of the cell? Really, when they found all of the little complex organelles and discovered the functions of them all and discovered the complexity and confounding density of information that's stored in the deoxyribonucleic acid in the nucleus, they found some way for random mutation of a trait that may or MAY NOT cause the animal or plant to have an advantage over others of its kind and for that trait to continue and for more to happen until it becomes something else completely over the space of hundreds of thousands of years?[/color]

Yes actually. That's pretty much exactly what happened. You think it sounds ridiculous? Well we once thought the idea that the Earth was round was ridiculous.

[color="#2E8B57"]In this first bolded portion, Dawkins uses what is known in the English language as pathetic fallacy. Pathetic fallacy if the attatchment of an interior human ablitity (emotion, thought) to something innanimate. Natural selection is claimed by the theory of evolution to be the cause of random mutation in a species to have a trait that will make an individual better off or worse off than his peers. How can a nontangible entity "favor" something without first having the mind to favor it? [/color]

It wouldn't be able to based on random mutation alone. Lucky for us, evolution is not solely random mutation. And again, you create the false dichotomy by pitting evolution against a creator when it is quite possible that a creator made evolution. You can't pit a maker against a method. It doesn't make any sense.

[color="#2E8B57"]The second and the third both basically say the same thing, the thing that you said evolutionists didn't say: IMAGINE! Imagine that species pop up out of other ones over long periods of time due to random mutation! Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try. . . . and so on. Hows that for hard, cold fact?[/color]

A proper degree in evolutionary biology takes several years to achieve. It makes sense to think that someone with several years of study speaking technically will only confuse people with no formal teachings on the subject. So they must simplify things to help get their point across, which is what he did by using the word "imagine". Now if you don't mind, please stop quote mining. It is extremely dishonest - and very popular among creationists.

[color="#2E8B57"]No, that's not why there's an ongoing debate. The reason that there's an ongoing debate within the scientific community is just that: Scientists can't agree. The matter isn't settled. There's evidence against evolution and these liberal blowhards are just trying to keep it going until their opponents all just shut up, but that's not how the war of ideas works. You get your evidence and you get you word in and you go on from there. All these evolutionists want to do is push their agenda and shut their opponents up, that’s it.[/color]

Um...no. There is no ongoing debate in the scientific community. At all. At least, among those in fields relevant to evolution. There's physicists and chemists and even a few geologists who disagree, but since when are they a credible source for information on evolution? Never. Last I checked, the statistics were 99.98% of scientists accept evolution. That's .02% who reject it. A higher percent of people still think the earth is flat. The ongoing debate is among layman only - and even then mostly only in the U.S. and Turkey.

[color="#2E8B57"]I don’t have any problem with experts on biology. I have a problem with experts on biology who have an agenda that pushes evidence and reason aside and calls their opponents “religious nuts”, “stupid”, and the like. Besides, I don’t accept the word of EVERY “expert” in every other school of knowledge on the entire planet. You have no idea what exactly I believe or stand for, so I’d suggest you keep to what’s written here and stop making rash statements. You’re only hurting your own argument.[/color]

You really should stop assuming that they have an agenda here. It's a ridiculous thing to assume. Essentially, you're accusing biologists of being part of some giant conspiracy theory - a little difficult considering they come from all walks of life and all sorts of faiths. The scientific method has existed for quite some time. All proper scientists follow it and it just so happens that in following it, they find evidence for evolution. You might be able to convince me that there's a problem with the scientific method, but don't accuse people of having an agenda when all they're doing is following the rules.

[color="#2E8B57"]Stubborn? Okay, you can make the argument that some “average Joe”, cranky conservative arguing with you is stubborn. I am. I refuse to believe that evolution is true, though my stubbornness isn't a baseless one. The fuel of my stubbornness isn't emotion, but convictions through reason. Do you realize that there are many experts who have risen to prominence in their schools and their fields of study that have been fired, ridiculed, and denied tenure because of their disbelief in evolution? Are you willing to call them stubborn when they lose the respect of their peers and their livelihood?[/color]

Question everything dude. Ask yourself - why were they fired? I'll tell you why. because evolution has been proven true in every sense of the word. It is more complete than the theory of gravity and pretty much every aspect of biology depends on it. Rejecting evolution is like rejecting gravity and if you open your mind and decide to study what evolution really is, you will see this. It's one thing if they were math teachers who were fired for rejecting evolution, but I've got the distinct feeling that they were biology teachers refusing to teach the required curriculum. God's creation is far more beautiful this way anyways.

[color="#2E8B57"]I'll tell you what's frustrating: being called stupid under the guise of not being called such, having words put in my mouth, and not being given the benefit of the doubt that I can hold my own in an argument by someone who's basically playing patty-cake with me. Why can't you come back at me with some real ammo? That's what I want. I don't want to be dismissed as someone without logic, without intelligence, and without evidence. If this is how you argue, then I'd be highly surprised to know of any argument that you've legitimately won or a mind that you've changed.[/color]

I can't come back with real ammo because, as you said, you refuse to believe in evolution. That means that no matter what I say or what I show you, you will reject it. If you have no reason to - even a convoluted one - you will simply reject it off hand with no reason at all.

It's high noon, our guns are in our holsters, hands at our sides, and the clock is dinging, but you have your eyes closed, and I don't shoot people who aren't looking. Especially when they won't actually answer my questions, so I'll copy and paste them here again:

Be honest with yourself - how can you possibly believe that something is wrong when you know almost nothing about it? Doesn't it frustrate you when anti-Catholics try and tell you your beliefs are wrong when they don't even understand them? And if so, how can you consider yourself fair minded when you do the exact same thing to evolutionists?

Edited August 17, 2008 by Farsight one

[iheartjp2]

Pardon, but YES IT IS evolution. The definition of evolution is "the change in allele frequencies over time". After only one generation, allele frequencies change - every time. You need to stop redefining evolution to support your argument. It is not evolutionists who try to legitimize things by compartmentalizing it. We don't want it compartmentalized. It is the creationists who are doing so by saying that x amount of change in y amount of time is possible, but 2x amount of change in 2y amount of time is not. If anyone's twisting anything here, it is most certainly you and all the other creationists who choose to repeatedly redefine evolution, micro, macro, trasitional, etc, etc, etc to support their arguments.

[color="#FF0000"]Huh? Sorry, I lost you at “You need to stop redefining evolution…”. In case you didn’t know, creationists didn’t come up with the term, you guys did. You’re the ones who created the terminology of micro and macro, and you’re the ones who continue to go through all sorts of stupid verbal contortions to push this theory that hasn’t been proven. We don’t have any need to redefine anything, we don’t accept the nutjob theory in the first place. We believe in an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER who when he created the world, knew that he was doing when he made creatures able to adapt to their environments by traits being slightly modified.[/color]

So you don't think mAcro evolution is impossible?

[color="#FF0000"]Yes, I think it’s possible. There are many things that are possible. A pink, oversized rabbit lumbering around, dropping eggs in random places is possible. I, along with the rest of the population that’s above the age of 6, however, don’t believe that such a thing is plausible.[/color]

You create a false dichotomy when you try and make the choice between evolution and religion.

[color="#FF0000"]I see that you either haven’t read Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut or it’s so far-removed you didn’t even recognize that reference. That comment had nothing to do with religion.[/color]

Pardon, but I don't know what you're talking about because newts don't become lions and polar bears don't become penguins - even over aeons. So maybe it's you who don't understand what evolution is. Again.

[color="#FF0000"]Pardon, but I don’t think that you understand when someone is speaking in figurative terms. No one ever did say that a newt could evolve into a lion or anything of the like, you’re right. The hyperbolic point I’m trying to make by that statement is that there’s no reason to suppose that species change into completely different ones through trait mutation. [/color]

That was exactly my point - that while ancient societies knew nothing of DNA or genetics, they did know that traits were passed on and believed that humans developed in this way over time.

[color="#FF0000"]No, that wasn't your point, and I don’t think you looked too closely at what I said. Darwin wasn’t coming up with anything new! People have been saying “Golly gee! Little Suzy here has her mother’s eyes!” or “I’ll be, tiny Tim has his dad’s nose!” for centuries. What the heck does that have to do with some sudden change due to random natural selection? [/color]

[i][color="#FF0000"]There's mounds of evidence for evolution that came with comprehension of the cell? Really, when they found all of the little complex organelles and discovered the functions of them all and discovered the complexity and confounding density of information that's stored in the deoxyribonucleic acid in the nucleus, they found some way for random mutation of a trait that may or MAY NOT cause the animal or plant to have an advantage over others of its kind and for that trait to continue and for more to happen until it becomes something else completely over the space of hundreds of thousands of years?[/color][/i]

Yes actually. That's pretty much exactly what happened. You think it sounds ridiculous? Well we once thought the idea that the Earth was round was ridiculous.

[color="#FF0000"]For your information, the belief that the Earth was flat wasn’t a universal belief. Ancient astronomers and mathematicians like Ptolemy knew that the Earth was round because of the Earth’s shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. Knowledge was lost and certain people fell into a mode of ignorance about such matters. What the heck does that have to do with evolution?

And it wouldn’t hurt to give me some evidence. Why should I believe you if you’re just saying things and telling me I’m dumb for not believing them? You know what, I’ll give you a heads up, give you something to go on. Why don’t you explain to me, since you’re so darned well-read on the subject, explain to me the mechanics of the evolution of the modern eye? Have a picnic.[/color]

It wouldn't be able to based on random mutation alone. Lucky for us, evolution is not solely random mutation. And again, you create the false dichotomy by pitting evolution against a creator when it is quite possible that a creator made evolution. You can't pit a maker against a method. It doesn't make any sense.

[color="#FF0000"]Have I ever doubted God? Seriously, have I ever doubted the omnipotent, omniscient God? I never pitted evolution against God. I pitted evolution against human reasoning. If God made evolution, then Darwin’s theory goes out the window! Darwin can only be credited for making up a crackpot bedtime story for how the creatures of the world have adapted to a changing environment. We have an intelligent God, evidence for that is clearly present in his creation. What I’m disagreeing with is this idea that random mutations occurred that just happened to be the right ones to create something better to continue into the future while the former phased out. Didn’t you tell me just above that random mutations that may or may have not been for the better of a species occurred and caused species to change into different ones, or are you changing your position a few moments later? Go back up and read that huge section of mine that I left for your reference again.[/color]

A proper degree in evolutionary biology takes several years to achieve. It makes sense to think that someone with several years of study speaking technically will only confuse people with no formal teachings on the subject. So they must simplify things to help get their point across, which is what he did by using the word "imagine". Now if you don't mind, please stop quote mining. It is extremely dishonest - and very popular among creationists.

[color="#FF0000"]By “quote mining”, you mean presenting evidence for my claims, right? Well, no, I won't stop doing that, I'm sure, much to your annoyance and grievance, but I'm not here to console you, I'm here to debate with you. I'm a tough debater, that's how it is. Evolution is a crackpot theory and to claim that scientists are just “talking down to us” because we’re not as smart as they are isn’t helping you, it’s actually making you look less credible. Why should I believe what someone’s saying when I can’t even be trusted to understand them? You could argue that peasants in the middle ages were being led around by the nose because of lack of education, but in today’s world? Are you kidding me? That’s just how you people operate. You talk down to them and then you expect them to agree with you. You can’t trust someone to be intelligent enough to know when you’re both insulting them and lying to them. Even if they did need to dumb down the language a bit, come on! When the next words that come out of a scientists mouth are “It’s easy to imagine”, they’re not speaking scientifically, they’re speaking fancifully. I thought evolution was proven by experimentation? Don’t diagrams and arrows pointing from illustration to word suffice? Why do you need someone to imagine something that you tested and proved? You’re not making sense.[/color]

Um...no. There is no ongoing debate in the scientific community. At all. At least, among those in fields relevant to evolution. There's physicists and chemists and even a few geologists who disagree, but since when are they a credible source for information on evolution? Never. Last I checked, the statistics were 99.98% of scientists accept evolution. That's .02% who reject it. A higher percent of people still think the earth is flat. The ongoing debate is among layman only - and even then mostly only in the U.S. and Turkey.

[color="#FF0000"]Well, if you’re going to start graduating from this “you’re stupid” argumentation method and get all scholarly on me, why don’t you give me your source?[/color]

You really should stop assuming that they have an agenda here. It's a ridiculous thing to assume. Essentially, you're accusing biologists of being part of some giant conspiracy theory - a little difficult considering they come from all walks of life and all sorts of faiths. The scientific method has existed for quite some time. All proper scientists follow it and it just so happens that in following it, they find evidence for evolution. You might be able to convince me that there's a problem with the scientific method, but don't accuse people of having an agenda when all they're doing is following the rules.

[color="#FF0000"]Ridiculous thing to assume?? These aren’t men and women who slave day in and day out with their Bunsen burners and test-tubes, covered with chalk with bloodshot eyes looking for an answer. These are people who make money doing what they do and that’s supporting their own agenda and calling their opponents stupid religious zealots.

There has been no scientific method followed to “prove” or do anything concerning, otherwise, the theory of evolution. There were however, things like….a peppered moth experiment that turned out to be a hoax, the creation of amino acids in a test-tube, though in an atmosphere that was later shown to not be the one that probably existed above ancient Earth, and besides, that, the step from amino acids and ultimately to life seems to elude those who push this in our faces still. There’s the crackpot bedtime stories that are told about how this, that, and the other thing MIGHT have happened, and then there’s the illustrations of embryos of a chicken, a human, and a rabbit that were purposely drawn to look similar when they don’t look anything alike in real life. [/color]

Question everything dude. Ask yourself - why were they fired? I'll tell you why. because evolution has been proven true in every sense of the word. It is more complete than the theory of gravity and pretty much every aspect of biology depends on it. Rejecting evolution is like rejecting gravity and if you open your mind and decide to study what evolution really is, you will see this. It's one thing if they were math teachers who were fired for rejecting evolution, but I've got the distinct feeling that they were biology teachers refusing to teach the required curriculum. God's creation is far more beautiful this way anyways.

[color="#FF0000"]“Question everything, dude”. Wow. If I couldn’t go to your user profile and check your age, I’d have thought you were at least alive long enough to be a drug-experimenting, Ravi Shankar-listening, tie-dye shirt-wearing, long-haired, hippie college student in the sixties, but I digress. I don’t need to question MYSELF why they were fired. Some were fired, some lost tenure, all lost their dignity in the eyes of their ridiculing peers because of their convictions. I thought these people were open to debate. Creationist scientists are ready to debate anyone anywhere, where are the evolutionists lining up to prove them wrong? I’ll tell you why: they don’t’ like debate. They want to hold on to their status and their power and their tenure and not have to deal with any reason being thrown on their ideas. Why don’t you take some of your own advice and “question everything, dude”?

You also didn't answer my question fully. They lost jobs, tenure, and respect. Why not just deny the "drivel" they were pushing and just accept evolution as scientific fact, it's been PROVEN right? Oh, and just so you know, these people I'm talking about aren't just "teachers" like your sweet, little, old grade school teacher. These are men and women with PhDs in their respective fields of study who have been studying and working for years. Unless you're at an Ivy League school on your way to becoming a groundbreaking scientists, what they've done in their years, neither you nor I could accomplish in our lifetime. I'm sure they'd love to take you on since you seem so well-read and eager to give these "nuts" a little lesson in logic and science.[/color]

I can't come back with real ammo because, as you said, you refuse to believe in evolution. That means that no matter what I say or what I show you, you will reject it. If you have no reason to - even a convoluted one - you will simply reject it off hand with no reason at all.

It's high noon, our guns are in our holsters, hands at our sides, and the clock is dinging, but you have your eyes closed, and I don't shoot people who aren't looking. Especially when they won't actually answer my questions, so I'll copy and paste them here again:

Be honest with yourself - how can you possibly believe that something is wrong when you know almost nothing about it? Doesn't it frustrate you when anti-Catholics try and tell you your beliefs are wrong when they don't even understand them? And if so, how can you consider yourself fair minded when you do the exact same thing to evolutionists?

[color="#FF0000"]Alright, I'm completely sold. You have removed any doubt that I had in my mind that you’ve never won an argument with anyone over anything. You call me stupid, you call me un-read on the subject of contention, you tell me I’m being illogical, and then you give me some offhand info without a source. There’s no possible way you’d have a chance to win a debate with anyone. You come to a debate forum and then you do all this and conclude with, “Ohh, man, if I give you an argument that’s substantial and not limp-wristed, you just won’t believe me so I won’t say anything.” Well I’ve been giving you logical argument after logical argument and you’re not bending, maybe I should just call you stupid, call you illogical, call you stubborn and then just call it a day, which is exactly what you want to do, because instead of bringing forth evidence and reason like a true person of intelligence and standard, you want to point fingers and attack people’s intelligence because just like every other evolutionist scientist who’s trying to ridicule those who don’t believe the theories they push, you don’t like real debate.[/color]

[Farsight one]

[color="#FF0000"]Huh? Sorry, I lost you at “You need to stop redefining evolution…”. In case you didn’t know, creationists didn’t come up with the term, you guys did. You’re the ones who created the terminology of micro and macro, and you’re the ones who continue to go through all sorts of stupid verbal contortions to push this theory that hasn’t been proven. We don’t have any need to redefine anything, we don’t accept the nutjob theory in the first place. We believe in an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER who when he created the world, knew that he was doing when he made creatures able to adapt to their environments by traits being slightly modified.[/color]

That's true. We did come up with it, but creationists kind of stole it and redefined it. What it means to a creationist is not what it means to a scientist. We didn't contort it's meaning. You guys did. That should be obvious from the simple facts that we used it first, we still try to use it the way it was originally used, and you guys don't. And guess what? I believe in an intelligent designer who knew what He was doing when He created the world too. You've still got this false dichotomy issue here.

[color="#FF0000"]Pardon, but I don’t think that you understand when someone is speaking in figurative terms. No one ever did say that a newt could evolve into a lion or anything of the like, you’re right. The hyperbolic point I’m trying to make by that statement is that there’s no reason to suppose that species change into completely different ones through trait mutation. [/color]

I know that. You said that evolution must be false because a newt will never become a lion. I was merely explaining how that was simply nonsense because in evolution, newts don't become lions. And yes, there is reason to suppose that species change into completely different ones. But guess what? We don't have to assume it. We've SEEN it - multiple times. Really, it's the only logical conclusion anyways. I suggest the whole video, but all you really need is the first minute to see exactly how, over millions of years, on creature can become a completely different one: [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX4pXFhZA28"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX4pXFhZA28[/url]

[color="#FF0000"]No, that wasn't your point, and I don’t think you looked too closely at what I said. Darwin wasn’t coming up with anything new! People have been saying “Golly gee! Little Suzy here has her mother’s eyes!” or “I’ll be, tiny Tim has his dad’s nose!” for centuries. What the heck does that have to do with some sudden change due to random natural selection? [/color]

I'm pretty sure I know what my own arguments are better than you. And you thought I was putting words into [i]your[/i] mouth...

[color="#FF0000"]And it wouldn’t hurt to give me some evidence. Why should I believe you if you’re just saying things and telling me I’m dumb for not believing them? You know what, I’ll give you a heads up, give you something to go on. Why don’t you explain to me, since you’re so darned well-read on the subject, explain to me the mechanics of the evolution of the modern eye? Have a picnic.[/color]

Well, since you want evidence, here's this link: [url="http://www.talkorigins.org"]http://www.talkorigins.org[/url] Here's a basic explanation of the evolution of the eye from that site: [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html"]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html[/url] And here's a more in depth explanation from wikipedia: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye[/url]

That'll take you several months to read through all of talkorigins, but I really don't think it'll help for a few reasons. First, because you said you refused to believe in evolution - which pretty much amounts to you coming out and telling me nothing will work. Second, understanding evolution to the degree you're demanding takes several years of learning. *I* don't even know that much about it yet, so some of this stuff you're asking for is stuff I don't have yet. And the last reason is that it doesn't matter. No matter what evidence I show a creationist, they always dismiss it by saying something to the effect of "God made it look that way". If I ask a young earth creationist about the light from stars billions of miles away, they just say that God made it in transit. If I ask one about the geological column, they say God made it look that way. If I ask them about similarities in genetic code, again, "Goddidit" It turns God into a mindless excuse and I don't like it.

[color="#FF0000"]I pitted evolution against human reasoning. If God made evolution, then Darwin’s theory goes out the window![/color]

I have to seriously wonder where the heck you pulled this from. If God made evolution, there is NOTHING wrong with the theory of natural selection at all. It makes no statements for or against the existence or guidance of God - if it did, it could never be called science. Science is agnostic. Evolution, the big bang, string theory, M theory, etc - they all try to explain the how or the method. God can still be the cause of that method, whatever it may be.

[color="#FF0000"]What I’m disagreeing with is this idea that random mutations occurred that just happened to be the right ones to create something better to continue into the future while the former phased out.[/color]

Evolution would disagree with the exact same thing. Evolution is not just random mutations as I have already explained. Natural selection plays the most important part. Random mutation is only a secondary effect.

[color="#FF0000"]By “quote mining”, you mean presenting evidence for my claims, right?[/color]

No, actually, I don't. I mean intentionally taking a line out of context to support an argument. Here, let me do it to you. You said all of the following quotes word for word:

"I lost" - oh. So you admit defeat then?
"made creatures able to adapt to their environments by traits being slightly modified" - so you accept evolution then?
"a newt could evolve into a lion" - no need for comment
"you’re right" - thank you for admitting it
"There's mounds of evidence for evolution"
"you’re so darned well-read on the subject" - why thank you.

Do you understand what I mean by quote mining now? It's frustrating, isn't it?

Btw - do you even understand what the word "theory" means in the world of science? Because you seem to be using the meaning the general public uses.

[color="#FF0000"]Well, if you’re going to start graduating from this “you’re stupid” argumentation method and get all scholarly on me, why don’t you give me your source?[/color]

I saw it a couple months ago and can't remember where it was. If I find it, I'll post it.

[color="#FF0000"]
Ridiculous thing to assume?? These aren’t men and women who slave day in and day out with their Bunsen burners and test-tubes, covered with chalk with bloodshot eyes looking for an answer. These are people who make money doing what they do and that’s supporting their own agenda and calling their opponents stupid religious zealots.[/color]

Make money?!?! Are you really serious? No. They don't make money for this stuff. Its extremely rare to get a research grant at all, and they're never very big. You don't get payed for material that winds up in a science journal, and you don't get rich off of making discoveries. If a scientists wants to make money, they need to write books or become a college professor. I work in a hospital as what is essentially a nurse's secretary and I probably make about as much money in a year as a paleontologist.

[color="#FF0000"]a peppered moth experiment that turned out to be a hoax[/color]

It was not a hoax. The guy who took the picture places the moths on the trees to take the picture and fully admitted it. There is nothing "hoax" about it. There's an article someone on that talkorigins website I gave you that explains things quite well.

[color="#FF0000"]the step from amino acids and ultimately to life seems to elude those who push this in our faces still.[/color]

Evolution is the change of life. You're talking about the creation of life here. That's abiogenesis - an entirely different realm.

[color="#FF0000"]“Question everything, dude”. Wow. If I couldn’t go to your user profile and check your age, I’d have thought you were at least alive long enough to be a drug-experimenting, Ravi Shankar-listening, tie-dye shirt-wearing, long-haired, hippie college student in the sixties, but I digress[/color]

I'm trying somewhat to be an adult here. Subtle insults under the guise of digression aren't exactly welcome here. Nor is calling us all "crackpots" and greedy and any other manner of insult you've tossed in my general direction.

[color="#FF0000"]
I thought these people were open to debate[/color]

They are. On questions we don't already have a definitive answer to. But since evolution has been directly observed hundreds of times over, there is a definitive answer and thus absolutely nothing to debate.

[color="#FF0000"]Creationist scientists are ready to debate anyone anywhere, where are the evolutionists lining up to prove them wrong?[/color]

We're waiting. Creationists actually have a huge track record of setting up debates and then just not showing up with no warning. It's freaking ridiculous. The Dover v. Kitzmiller trial, presided over by a Creationist judge of all people, had six out of the nine Creationist big-wigs back out at the last moment and refused to give an explanation.

Some evolutionists won't debate creationists though, because they feel that it gives the creationist too much credit. If they debate a big time evolutionist like Ken Miller, then they can go around talking about their debate like unofficial credentials. If you hear about someone who debated a big time evolutionist, you'd instinctively think that they're a pretty knowledgeable creationist, wouldn't you? Of course, they don't tell you that they got their butt whupped in the debate, but that doesn't matter. It's publicity for them.

[color="#FF0000"]Why don’t you take some of your own advice and “question everything, dude”?[/color]

I did. That's why I'm no longer a creationist.

[color="#FF0000"]Alright, I'm completely sold. You have removed any doubt that I had in my mind that you’ve never won an argument with anyone over anything. You call me stupid, you call me un-read on the subject of contention, you tell me I’m being illogical, and then you give me some offhand info without a source. There’s no possible way you’d have a chance to win a debate with anyone. You come to a debate forum and then you do all this and conclude with, “Ohh, man, if I give you an argument that’s substantial and not limp-wristed, you just won’t believe me so I won’t say anything.” Well I’ve been giving you logical argument after logical argument and you’re not bending, maybe I should just call you stupid, call you illogical, call you stubborn and then just call it a day, which is exactly what you want to do, because instead of bringing forth evidence and reason like a true person of intelligence and standard, you want to point fingers and attack people’s intelligence because just like every other evolutionist scientist who’s trying to ridicule those who don’t believe the theories they push, you don’t like real debate. [/color]

1. You're being insulting and you know it.
2. I never called you stupid
3. I've turned six atheists into believers and a couple dozen creationists into "evolutionists". I'm pretty sure I've won some debates.
4. You accuse me of having no sources when you yourself have yet to provide any. That's the pot calling the kettle black. But lucky you you have them now.
5. You have yet to give me one single logical argument. Not one. You have systematically misrepresented evolution and made blind accusations of falsehoods and conspiracies, but not once have you laid out an argument with an initial "assumption", syllogisms, and a conclusion. There is nothing of the kind in anything you said.
6. The problem I most have is that in rejecting evolution, you are calling pretty much every biologist, paleontologist, geneticist, and geologist a liar and a deceiver. Occam's razor applies here. What's more likely? That a conspiracy theory consisting of millions of scientists is perpetuating a lie onto society with little to no monetary gain to them, or that you, who would admit that you don't know a lot about the subject, are simply mistaken?
7. You STILL didn't answer my questions. Here they are again:

Be honest with yourself - how can you possibly believe that something is wrong when you know almost nothing about it? Doesn't it frustrate you when anti-Catholics try and tell you your beliefs are wrong when they don't even understand them? And if so, how can you consider yourself fair minded when you do the exact same thing to evolutionists?

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1629338' date='Aug 16 2008, 11:23 PM']Question everything dude. Ask yourself - why were they fired? I'll tell you why. because evolution has been proven true in every sense of the word. It is more complete than the theory of gravity and pretty much every aspect of biology depends on it. Rejecting evolution is like rejecting gravity and if you open your mind and decide to study what evolution really is, you will see this. It's one thing if they were math teachers who were fired for rejecting evolution, but I've got the distinct feeling that they were biology teachers refusing to teach the required curriculum. God's creation is far more beautiful this way anyways.[/quote]
You remind me of my high school biology teacher. He taught us in an evolutionary style, which he explained didn't mean we had to believe evolution, just that he'd be teaching us things using evolutions chronology. But he also said that he believed that God was in charge of it (I went to a Catholic school). He also asked us, "What's more impressive? A God who makes something that can only survive in specific conditions, or a God who makes creatures that change and adapt over the years so the species can survive?" I have to say, I think the God who makes evolution work seems more impressive to me!

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1628581' date='Aug 15 2008, 10:39 PM']Pardon, but where does evolution say you are an accident? Last I checked it made no claims either way. Whether made from dirt or made through evolution, God made you with a purpose. It's not how you're made. It's that you were made at all that tells you you have a purpose.[/quote]

That is what every atheist says. There is no rhyme or reason to evolution, and that we just happened. If that doesn't mean accident, than what does.

Evolution is a serious of accidents, culminating to what we see today. So either, I am not an accident, or I am. There are some people on this board who claim, God didn't involve himself in evolution at all, but he just set everything in motion, and let everything happen. Again, this is saying, God had no plan, but wanted to see what happened, and therefore we are just accidents again.

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1628581' date='Aug 15 2008, 10:39 PM']Well, we didn't evolve directly out of apes for one thing. What you're doing is taking the bible's meaning of "kind" and applying it to evolution. It doesn't work that way. Evolution doesn't even use the word "kind".[/quote]

LOL!

It just uses the idea of species and race. Race, in English, is off shoots of the species which is our kind.

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1628581' date='Aug 15 2008, 10:39 PM']Believe it or not, but I saw a special on tv once that suggests that we can. (ew) Evidence for this was an ape creature that a family had been taking care of for years. It walked upright like humans - chimps can do this, but it is painful and hard and this one walked upright 24/7. In fact, it's bone structure was different from a normal chimp's. And the kicker is that it had 47 chromosomes. Since a human parent would pass on 23 and a chimp(or any other ape for that matter) would pass on 24, that comes out to 47 - strongly suggesting that a chimp and a human mated. It really appeared to be a human/ape/thing. It smoked, ate dinner at the table with utensils, was more attracted to human women than chimps, but still couldn't talk and looked mostly like a chimp. I hope that never happens again, but it is interesting. (and fyi - they showed plenty of video footage of the actual ape - this is not some bigfoot style rumor)[/quote]

Until you give proof this, forgive me if I believe this is a lie. I want details of which TV show you watched this episode on, who were the producers, who was the director.

Even to debate this point, Chromosomes pair up when reproduction occurs, that means there wouldn't be 47 individual chromosomes, but 23 pairs of genes with an extra one, if such a thing was possible.

I think you are grasping at straws with this one, and I don't appreciate lies being passed off as truth, even though this entire topic is all about that.

Edited August 17, 2008 by MakeYouThink

[Farsight one]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1629817' date='Aug 17 2008, 04:02 PM']That is what every atheist says. There is no rhyme or reason to evolution, and that we just happened. If that doesn't mean accident, than what does.[/quote]First let me clear up - I am certainly no atheist. And it's not just every atheist who says that, it's everyone who accepts evolution that says it because it's true. Evolution, like all sciences, is agnostic. God can be behind it if you want, and if God is behind it, then clearly, there is rhyme and reason to it - though our limited human selves may be unable to comprehend God's plan.

[quote]Evolution is a serious of accidents, culminating to what we see today. So either, I am not an accident, or I am. There are some people on this board who claim, God didn't involve himself in evolution at all, but he just set everything in motion, and let everything happen. Again, this is saying, God had no plan, but wanted to see what happened, and therefore we are just accidents again.[/quote]Evolution is not an accident. I cannot say this enough. Natural selection is anything but random and natural selection is most of evolution. God might involve himself, selecting what to mutate, which traits are beneficial, etc. Really, I would personally say that He is involved in such a way, we just can't see it.


[quote]LOL!

It just uses the idea of species and race. Race, in English, is off shoots of the species which is our kind.[/quote]If your meaning of "kind" is simply species, then I should point out that horses and donkeys, two separate species, can mate. And those offspring can, under rare circumstances, produce offspring of their own. So that would mean that the bible would be wrong when it says creatures reproduce only with their "kind". I don't think you are, and I'm certainly not, willing to say the bible is wrong. The only other option here is that our definition of "kind" here is not right.



[quote]Until you give proof this, forgive me if I believe this is a lie. I want details of which TV show you watched this episode on, who were the producers, who was the director.[/quote]Uh. No. I've been called many things in my life, and the one that irks me the most is "liar". Don't expect forgiveness for calling me a liar. All I can remember is that it was a one time tv special approximately a year ago. It was on a channel like the history channel or the discovery channel or something like that. Expecting me to know who the director and producer was is flat out ridiculous. I don't even know the director and producer of my favorite movie which I watch 2 or 3 times a week.

In looking for a source for you, I came across this: [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C6NkRUbI38"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C6NkRUbI38[/url] That's the ape I was thinking of, but it's not the documentary. I didn't watch the whole thing, but it appears that since the last time I saw info on Oliver, they have changed their story - so he's got 48 chromosomes. But still, the mutation that allows him to look more human, get along with humans better, walk upright, etc, etc is quite a large change and quite impressive evidence for evolution anyway.

[quote]Even to debate this point, Chromosomes pair up when reproduction occurs, that means there wouldn't be 47 individual chromosomes, but 23 pairs of genes with an extra one, if such a thing was possible.[/quote]Doesn't 23 pairs with an extra come out to 47 total anyways? So there would be 47. I'm not sure what you're trying to say unless you're making an attempt to differentiate between this case and super males/females

[quote]I think you are grasping at straws with this one, and I don't appreciate lies being passed off as truth, even though this entire topic is all about that.[/quote]And I don't appreciate being called a liar. Whatever happened to people assuming good faith? Why must anyone who disagrees with you(or anyone) have to have some hidden insidious agenda?