Conquer Club

From the "is God logical thread":

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

owheelj wrote: Evolution essentially only occurs during meiosis - ie. in the period of time where the DNA from the parents of a life form combines.

Evolution can occur during several stages of development, including in the creation of gametes, embryonic development, etc.


Per the "E" versus "e". Usually a capitol letter indicates a proper name, in this case the theory of Evolution. It is broadly simply the change of species over time, but in specifics involves a lot more. It is a convention, but not universal.

That said, however you distinguish, there is a theory of Evolution and there is the fact of evolution, both.

If evolution was a fact then they would most certainly stop teaching creation. How many people do you know that teach a flat Earth? Hmmm I wonder why they don't? Aaah that's right! They have proof that it is round!


It's one thing to believe in evolution. If you do, good for you. But I can't stand when people say it is a fact. It is not a fact! If it was you could show me proof of it and this conversation would end. But the FACT is, you CAN'T prove evolution any more than I can "prove" God.

First, why it is taught has to do with poor funding in schools, a generation of poor science teaching and a misguided idea that this is about freedom of religion, not facts versus fiction.

However, I have to clarify here.

First, there is the term "evolution" which just means that things change over time. That happens. It IS a fact. It IS observed and proven. If you question, I will be happy to provide you with some citations and such. Evolution is also a theory or even a set of theories. The broad, overall idea is that life began here on Earth. To simplify, material formed into proteins which then became more complex and eventually became life, which eventually changed, adapted and diversified until we have the diversity of life we see now, including human beings.

Within that theory, however, are parts that are quite certain and parts that are not. Life did change here on Earth, the species we see did start out as simple forms and then evolve into more complex ones. BUT, how did we first get here? Was there some protein on an wandering asteroid, for example? We cannot say for absolute certain.

Which species gave rise to exactly which other species? In some cases, the fossil record is pretty clear. In some case, living examples of prehistoric animals still persist. (The Ceolocanth fish, for example (only discovered off the coast of Cameroon a few decades ago), the horseshoe crab, lamprey, even alligators are examples of early species.). HOWEVER, there are sections that are simply not known, there are places where we may never know exactly what happened.

HOWEVER, and this is an important point, you don't have to know how each and every species came to be... that is, you don't have to know each and every ancestor to know that evolution happened. Right now, we have so much information that the possibility that Evolution is completely wrong ..that is, that species got here through some process other than gradual change is very, very, very, very remote.

As for Creationism... sorry jay, but the REAL truth (and yes, I can prove this) is that the only way for the Earth to be 6000 or 12000 years old is if God made the Earth appear to be that old. However, this is not Dr Morris or the Institute for Creation Study's assertion. It is not what is being put forward and taught as "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design", etc.

Question this?

No problem..give me any piece of information, any data and I will answer. Or, will find someone who can (I am not, for example, a geologist).


Here are a couple of links that tackle the issue overall:
"equal time"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/R ... Time.shtml

"10 questions"
http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis ... -questions

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurri ... nsense.pdf



These are very general and a bit old. Creationist websites are constantly changing so that claims once made are deleted or watered down, at least within the websites. (interesting that, in and of itself!).

A big point I want to make about the tactics. Most people really do think this issue is over and done and gone. What happens is they will queitly teach kids, even outright tell them not to challenge anyone, don't get into debates, because they will lose. They let these kids grow up and then, when you have several hundred in one area who have never ever been taught real Evolution, only what Dr Morris translates as "evolution", then they come before the school board and simply ask, quite "innocently" well.. why can't our version be presented, too.

School boards then either face a lawsuit or changing the curricula. It is an illegal tactic, but we believe in religious tolerance, many school board members themself don't really understand that this is a true attack on the entire field of science, not just a "petty little issue", and folks just don't have the time, energy or money.

Even when those folks are not before your school board, you may well find that your children's teachers just don't have enough knowledge to properly teach.

My son, for example, "learned" that frogs are invertebrates and that there are no feather fossils.

i believe we evolved from evolution,we sure did not come from god that's for sure,Their is to much science that proves we developed from apes,monkeys and chimps.They found a fossil that dates back 45 million years ago,proof that man evolved from this.Of couse the church will disagree with it,like it always does when it comes to this topic.



I'lll leave it to science to prove the church wrong

karel wrote:i believe we evolved from evolution,we sure did not come from god that's for sure,Their is to much science that proves we developed from apes,monkeys and chimps.They found a fossil that dates back 45 million years ago,proof that man evolved from this.Of couse the church will disagree with it,like it always does when it comes to this topic.



I'lll leave it to science to prove the church wrong

Sorry but this is one of those Hallmark moments that i just can't pass up. I just bold typed the obvious, but the whole post looks like maybe a struggling 5th or 6th grader. "Evolved from evolution" - priceless. And what is this 45 million year old fossil they came up with? Wasn't the Piltdown man by any chance? "Proof that man evolved from this" - well hell, you've solved the whole thing for us then. So i guess we can change it from the Theory of evolution to the Gosh Darn Fact of evolution, based on such a scholarly opinion.

I'll leave you to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.


Honibaz

karel wrote:I'll leave it to science to prove the church wrong

The argument between Church & science was settled when they started fitting lightning conductors to church towers.

b.k. barunt wrote:

karel wrote:i believe we evolved from evolution,we sure did not come from god that's for sure,Their is to much science that proves we developed from apes,monkeys and chimps.They found a fossil that dates back 45 million years ago,proof that man evolved from this.Of couse the church will disagree with it,like it always does when it comes to this topic.



I'lll leave it to science to prove the church wrong

Sorry but this is one of those Hallmark moments that i just can't pass up. I just bold typed the obvious, but the whole post looks like maybe a struggling 5th or 6th grader. "Evolved from evolution" - priceless. And what is this 45 million year old fossil they came up with? Wasn't the Piltdown man by any chance? "Proof that man evolved from this" - well hell, you've solved the whole thing for us then. So i guess we can change it from the Theory of evolution to the Gosh Darn Fact of evolution, based on such a scholarly opinion.

I'll leave you to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.


Honibaz

And yes they did find a 45 million old fossil,just watched a show on it last night,they found it in germany.

I guess it comes down to if you believe in god or not,most that belive in god do not belive in evoultion.

So i guess each to their own

For one i do not belive that we came from god,show me the proof and i will belive,and don't pull any bible quotes out, they prove nothing................

each their own i guess.

I would put forward as the best case of proving evolution are the flightless birds that inhabit / inhabited New Zealand before man reached the islands

New Zealand has been created out of two plates crashing into each other and forcing a land mass above the sea (plus volcanoes to add even more land mass)

Therefore, New Zealand being over 1000 miles from the nearest land mass was originally populated by birds, the birds discovering that there were no land predators eventually flew so inoften, that they became flightless.

I know this is backward evolution, but surely this is evidence of how animals can change?

karel wrote:I guess it comes down to if you believe in god or not,most that belive in god do not belive in evoultion.

This is just flat out and absolutely incorrect.

In fact, there is just a small group of Christians and a smattering of other individuals who seriously questin Evolution. THEY and they alone try to put forward the notion that "Christians don't believe Evolution".. However, that only holds true because part of their definition of Christianity is not believing Evolution, because they feel it contradicts the Bible. This is and EXTREMELY offensive assertion to the vast majority of believing, Bible-reading and believing Christians, such as myself.

Pedronicus wrote:I would put forward as the best case of proving evolution are the flightless birds that inhabit / inhabited New Zealand before man reached the islands

New Zealand has been created out of two plates crashing into each other and forcing a land mass above the sea (plus volcanoes to add even more land mass)

Therefore, New Zealand being over 1000 miles from the nearest land mass was originally populated by birds, the birds discovering that there were no land predators eventually flew so inoften, that they became flightless.

I know this is backward evolution, but surely this is evidence of how animals can change?

It is one of the many pieces in the evolutionary puzzle.

That said, Creationists deny the whole techtonic plate issue.

The basic problem is that to teach Evolution .. you have to teach. To deny it, all you have to do is say "the proof does not exist"... and withhold the information from your students. Then, without a real grounding in what really is known and is true and is proven, the gap can be filled with all sorts of erroneous information.

For examples, check out this website:
http://www.icr.org/

But please, understand, this is NOT about people's right to believe the Earth is 6000 or 12,000 (or whatever date) years old. This is about presenting lies as if they were facts and denying truths that DO exist and ARE proven.

If Dr Morris, the ICR were plain asserting that "we know the science says xyz, yes, we know they have evidence, but we believe it is false". Few would object as vociferously. The OBJECTION is to the assertion that Creationism is PROVEN by science or even that it has any sort of equal standing to Evolution in theory. The truth is that about the only way the Earth could be young is if God created it young, but made it look as if it were old, creating the fossil record, creating the geologic column, putting all the transition fossils into the rocks, etc. Possible, within his power, absolutely (if you believe in the Judea-Christian God, which I definitely do). However, that is not the assertion of Creationists...at all!

Dr Morris has convinced almost an entire generation that much of the existing data simply does not exist. I find his approach and his misuse of Christiantiy to be extremely offensive. Christ did not teach us to lie. So, why does Dr Morris insist on allowing such falsehoods to be presented?

Why are there no poll options?

Because it's not a matter of opinion.

I guess that kind of defeats the purpose of having a thread about something then Maybe the original poster just wanted to hear themselves talk if that's the case.

zebraman wrote:I guess that kind of defeats the purpose of having a thread about something then Maybe the original poster just wanted to hear themselves talk if that's the case.

how much do we really need a poll to realize a us centric audience is lagging behind the rest of the world in a fairly simple concept?

got tonkaed wrote:

zebraman wrote:I guess that kind of defeats the purpose of having a thread about something then Maybe the original poster just wanted to hear themselves talk if that's the case.

how much do we really need a poll to realize a us centric audience is lagging behind the rest of the world in a fairly simple concept?

How much do we need to not have a poll to realize that we don't like to hear opinions that disagree with ours. I do believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is mostly fact. I'm just saying it would be nice to hear others on the matter. It doesn't bother me to hear people who don't agree with me on this. It seems odd to me that having a largely US centric audience would bother you.

zebraman wrote:I guess that kind of defeats the purpose of having a thread about something then Maybe the original poster just wanted to hear themselves talk if that's the case.

No. You misunderstand the idea of sharing information and debate. Debates are not decided by polls... EVER, not really. Who cares if the majority agrees or not. If you are not convinced, you don't!

The real purpose of a debate like this is twofold. First and foremost to understand the other position. The second is to perhaps convince someone else of your position. NEITHER goal is met through a poll.

zebraman wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

zebraman wrote:I guess that kind of defeats the purpose of having a thread about something then Maybe the original poster just wanted to hear themselves talk if that's the case.

how much do we really need a poll to realize a us centric audience is lagging behind the rest of the world in a fairly simple concept?

How much do we need to not have a poll to realize that we don't like to hear opinions that disagree with ours. I do believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is mostly fact. I'm just saying it would be nice to hear others on the matter. It doesn't bother me to hear people who don't agree with me on this. It seems odd to me that having a largely US centric audience would bother you.

you havent been around the forum very long. Polls like this tend to go a certiain way, which can probably be accurately described as US centric. Its not even hearing the opinion of others or not hearing them, but polls tend to go pretty much in one direction on the board. If youd like, we can all tell you the way is going to go and save you time.

zebraman wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

zebraman wrote:I guess that kind of defeats the purpose of having a thread about something then Maybe the original poster just wanted to hear themselves talk if that's the case.

how much do we really need a poll to realize a us centric audience is lagging behind the rest of the world in a fairly simple concept?

How much do we need to not have a poll to realize that we don't like to hear opinions that disagree with ours. I do believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is mostly fact. I'm just saying it would be nice to hear others on the matter. It doesn't bother me to hear people who don't agree with me on this. It seems odd to me that having a largely US centric audience would bother you.

If you think this seriously, then you have not paid much attention to the debate. I have done out of my way, keep trying to get as much information as I can about Creationism. However all I find are packs of untruths and misunderstandings. When challenged, they will debate a little and then wind up with either "OK, well you are beyond my area of expertise, but here is a website....." (but never mind the hundred websites I can produce .. they are irrelevant) OR its "well, I believe the Bible and that's all I need" (A. I believe the Bible, too AND B. Then why did you claim you had all this PROOF of your belief?)

And.. while it CERTAINLY does not bother me to hear other opinions, it very much does bother me when kids, including my son are not being taught real science because either the school district is afraid of Creationist lawsuits or his teachers just don't know real science, are likely to even belong to Creationist churches and use their positions to put forward their non-standard ideas.

THAT is the issue. And, it is costing school districts across this country money and time and energy they can ill afford.

Ironically, the same people who say that the "US-centric" individuals do not listen to others are the same people who will not listen to the "US-centric" individuals because the former find the latter to be ridiculous. At least some people choose to debate instead of automatically assuming "stupid American."

Here are my two cents:

(1) Creationism should not be taught in public school. You want to teach your kid that God created the Earth, et. al., teach the kid at home.
(2) Evolution should be taught in public school.
(3) If someone doesn't want their kid taught evolution in public school, take the kid out of class and teach the kid whatever you want at home (i.e. refer to #1).
(4) If you teach your kid that evolution is wrong, he ain't gonna be a scientist.

Pretty easy solutions there. But, hey, let's ridicule everyone some more.

FICTION




I am not referring to adaptation because I believe that occurs within species. But the changing from one animal to another animal over time is fiction. There is no proof of this, it is science's attempt at explaining where man originated without God. The FACT is there is no concrete proof of this. If such proof existed there would be no debate. We no longer believe the Earth is flat, that meat spontainiously produces maggots or that the sun revolves around the Earth. Science has proven these to be false. What science has not proven is that man descended from apes.


The age of the Earth: From scripture we see that from Adam and Eve to present day is about 6,000 years. The Earth however,could be much older. We do not know how long each "day" was during the creation week.

thegreekdog wrote:Ironically, the same people who say that the "US-centric" individuals do not listen to others are the same people who will not listen to the "US-centric" individuals because the former find the latter to be ridiculous. At least some people choose to debate instead of automatically assuming "stupid American."

Here are my two cents:

(1) Creationism should not be taught in public school. You want to teach your kid that God created the Earth, et. al., teach the kid at home.
(2) Evolution should be taught in public school.
(3) If someone doesn't want their kid taught evolution in public school, take the kid out of class and teach the kid whatever you want at home (i.e. refer to #1).
(4) If you teach your kid that evolution is wrong, he ain't gonna be a scientist.

Pretty easy solutions there. But, hey, let's ridicule everyone some more.

I used to agree. However, after reading through what is really being taught in Creationist schools, home-schooling and seeing what happens when these kids grow up and get jobs in the government (25% of the Bush administration, for example ... the same administration that poo-pooed Global climate change, etc.... ) I have to say that there are reasons we need set curricula that are to be learned by ALL kids.

Knowing that 1 + 1 =2 is not open to religious interpretation. Neither is knowing that a tree is a tree and not a fish... and, yes, the basic idea of Evolution, including many of the concepts within it are simply not open to interpretation.

PLAYER57832 wrote: and, yes, the basic idea of Evolution, including many of the concepts within it are simply not open to interpretation.

Are you kidding? Of course it is! It is not a fact as "a tree is a tree" or "1+1=2"! This is like talking to a wall.

jay_a2j wrote:FICTION




I am not referring to adaptation because I believe that occurs within species. But the changing from one animal to another animal over time is fiction. There is no proof of this, it is science's attempt at explaining where man originated without God.

Jay, I am sorry, but why don't you look at the information that is very freely available. You have shown yourself ready and able to challenge things people teach you. Yet, not on this? Try again!
Here are some very easy to view and understand websites. They are NOT anywhere near the complete record.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

See, that is the biggest problem here. For me to try and lay out all the evidence would take many, many volumes. It would also require photographs of fossils that may or may not all exist online where I can access them (most now are, thanks to the growing need to refute the Creationists ... you are doing something good in that).

jay_a2j wrote:[The FACT is there is no concrete proof of this. If such proof existed there would be no debate. We no longer believe the Earth is flat, that meat spontainiously produces maggots or that the sun revolves around the Earth. Science has proven these to be false. What science has not proven is that man descended from apes.

#1 Man DID NOT descend from Apes.

#2 Whether people descended from a common ancestor of the Apes or not is actually only a small part of Evolution. That part could possibly be wrong and STILL NOT DISPROVE the entire theory.

#3. The evidence very much does suggest that human beings evolved from a line of evolution from which apes also arose. Go back a bit further and we are "related" in one way or another to all life on Earth.

jay_a2j wrote:The age of the Earth: From scripture we see that from Adam and Eve to present day is about 6,000 years. The Earth however,could be much older. We do not know how long each "day" was during the creation week.

First, I dispute your interpretation of the Bible. The Bible definitely does not say the Earth is 6000 years old. In fact, it says it is much older. This idea that "yom" means a 24 hour time period is a pretty recent view. It is not the historical view, which is one of many reasons why even as few Christians now believe the Earth is 6000 years old, even fewer Jews believe that.

Now, I have provided you with a couple of easy to understand websites with information on Evolution. I have asked you to provide specific data proving your point or proving that Evolution is wrong.

So far, all you have done is say "sorry, but the information you say does not exist... and, oh yeah, I cannot be bothered to even go look at a website to see if you might be speaking correctly". I expect better from you. You have shown yourself to be capable of intelligent, critical thinking. Let's see it here.

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: and, yes, the basic idea of Evolution, including many of the concepts within it are simply not open to interpretation.

Are you kidding? Of course it is! It is not a fact as "a tree is a tree" or "1+1=2"! This is like talking to a wall.

I said to refute the actual information I gave you. I asked you to provide contrary data or explanations. If all you can do is provide a some similies, then well... it is not I beating MY head against a wall, jay.

Do you read my posts? Or just fail to understand them? I said, "from Adam and Eve to the present was about 6,000 years" not that the Earth was 6,000 years old.

Posting web addresses to sites that fully accept evolution (without proof I might add) hardly proves your point. It's like me posting links to a "ghost sightings" page to "prove" ghosts exist.


SHOW ME the proof! (don't feel discouraged if you can't, I didn't expect you to be able to)


If it takes "many many volumes" to prove something, it most likely isn't true.

jay_a2j wrote: I said, "from Adam and Eve to the present was about 6,000 years"

Your saying evolution is far-fetched, yet you believe 2 people populated the planet in 6000 years.

jay_a2j wrote:Do you read my posts? Or just fail to understand them? I said, "from Adam and Eve to the present was about 6,000 years" not that the Earth was 6,000 years old.

Its still a ridiculous idea.

We have evidence of people here on the Americas ove 10,000 years ago.

jay_a2j wrote:Posting web addresses to sites that fully accept evolution (without proof I might add) hardly proves your point. It's like me posting links to a "ghost sightings" page to "prove" ghosts exist.

Not quite. For one thing, they do show proof.

What exactly is it you claim those sites should have that they don't.

jay_a2j wrote: SHOW ME the proof! (don't feel discouraged if you can't, I didn't expect you to be able to)

A real refutation, please? You have not answered one piece of evidence those sites mention.

jay_a2j wrote:If it takes "many many volumes" to prove something, it most likely isn't true.

MOST things in science take volumes. Many things in history, etc take volumes to really explain.

the basics -- that things change over time is easy. It is even proven. Except.. well, first Creationists asserted that change plain did not happen. (Yep, I can remember Dr Morris himself making that assertion!) Also claimed that dinosaurs were simply "pretend", that all supposed dinosaur fossils were really just living animals that were misinterpreted or even simply put there by Satan (a 1940's assertion, not a modern one to my knowledge). Anyway, things change. The problem with Creationism changes is that the initial assertion was that these things could not happen because the Bible said so. The Bible has not changed! ONly the Creationist interpretation has. Still.. people learn new things. So, set that aside.

Bottom line is that contrary to what you assert, MANY things are pretty complex..but very, very true. Can you design a rocket? No> Neither can I, but I don't deny they are real. Can you explain Einsteins theory of relativity? No? Neither can I, but I accept that it is real because I know it has been vetted by so many trained individuals.