Why can't evolution be part of god's plan?

[Setarcos]

Can "you" site scientific "proof" that demonstrates one species morphing into another species?

Let us ask Google
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
The following are four cases of observed speciation. 1) Speciation occured in a strain of
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The whole "common ancestry" thing ignores the possibility that life on this planet was made by design, hence the similarities, we had the same maker.

ID fell flat on its face.


ToE predicted chromosome 2

 

[Care4all]

I find it funny that logical is talking about magic when creationism is pretty much 'a being magically created everything'

That is the WHOLE point: evolutionists believe that magic just happened, where those that believe in G*d believe there was a magician.

very well said.....

 

[THE LIGHT]

You have been presented with mountains of evidence.

sure!

Hmm ... yes, you are an extremist since you refuse to learn from more than one source.

And that one source would be?

 

[logical4u]

Little did you know, the perception portion of the brain is the only part of the brain that does not grow when we are babies. Nobody's does.

False. Every part of the brain grows from birth. Furthermore, even IF a piece of brain does not physically grow, it can still develop. Case in point: you can continue to store new memories even though the physical storage space of your brain is not growing.

Case in point- radiometric dating. It is valid, and by the method we use, we can SUPPOSE that the degradation of the isotope's half life is the same now as it was, say a thousand years ago, or a million years ago- whatever... But that is, still, only proven based on the PRESUMPTION that the decay rate started out, and remained AS CONSTANT as it is at the time it is tested. We all know that certain environmental conditions can affect decay rate-

Also false. We are not talking about decay as in rotting vegetables, whereas leaving them in the sun makes them decay faster than putting them in the fridge. Half life equations are constant. Not only is the general graph of half life decay constant for any given material, but it looks the same for every single half-life decay:

[quoteJD_2B]Therein lies the theory of relativity- If the isotopes atoms BEGAN decaying at a faster rate than they did at the time they were tested

You come here claiming that everyone else doesn't have enough support to what they say, and yet you blatantly fabricate things without ANY support whatsoever.

I am not sure.. I have absolutely no training specific to neurology, so I probably could not say for sure, but apparently it is a portion of the brain that is not exactly cortex.. and apparently it has been measured and found to be a non-growing portion.. In any event (Sorry- I truly do not have a source for this, lol) perception is real and always differs between any two people in existence, even if only based on where they stand in a room, relative to how they might see that room and the images that they perceive from that position.. (Someone by the door, looking in- obviously perceives the room in the sense of being "from the doorway"- and "outside looking in"- and say the other person is in the room- then the person seeing it from the doorway looking in, also sees it as having a person inside, or being occupied. The person already in the room would quite probably see it as the inside of a room, and void of another person other than herself, and may consider the room to be unoccupied.. And just seeing things visually differently- seeing a couch from the back, versus the front, etc.. It is not that the lack of adequate perceptive ability we humans have necessarily changes significantly anything we see as normal or mundane- but there are always going to be fundamental differences in how we see those things, therefore we have a lacking in ability to be able to broadly imagine or perceive something that we have not yet had the capacity to picture..
You could imagine what the front of the couch looks like, seeing it from the back, if you have seen any couch before, or if you have (better yet) seen the front of this particular couch before. But, say the front of the couch has a cat laying on it.. You cant see the cat from behind the couch.. You have to change your perception to do that. Its is not possible to perceive a cat on the couch, if you do not know what a cat is, or a couch is.. You would certainly see the couch and the cat, even if it was for the first time ever in your life seeing such things as couches or cats- lol- and you would see and perceive its color and dimensions and everything that a person who has had plenty of experiences with couches and cats can perceive seeing- the same dimensions, and the same cat tail flicking back and forth, lol.. But you just cant imagine a cat you have never heard of, or seen, without being properly introduced to it in concept, at least- and you would never know it was even a cat at all, without seeing a photo of it, or being able to have some way of connecting it to whatever you were told a cat IS.. And the best verbal description of a dog, without describing a cat, can still lead a person who has never before seen a...uh.. cat OR a dog, to believe that the animal on the couch is actually a dog- with the furry ears, tail, and furry body- four legs, etc..
OK So when I am describing these events in perception, I am referring to God as a belief that can be perceived in ways that do not always coincide with other's beliefs of who or what God is, also.. And I am just saying.. That's perfectly okay and normal.

Fact exists regardless of perception.[/quote]

This is what we have been saying about the Lord. He (the first fact) exists regardless of perception.

[/quote] If all humans were wiped from the face of the earth, photosynthesis would still occur. We don't need to perceive it for it to be true. Furthermore, pointing out specific computer graphics or illusions that were made specifically with the purpose of having multiple interpretations does not by default mean that all data has multiple interpretations based on the person. You are poorly trying to equate a topic which is purposely trying for a subjective experience and projecting that onto objective fact. Furthermore, upon making such a poor attempt at discrediting fact, you do not revert to the next most logical conclusion, but default to a supernatural explanation.



OK so what have we learned from your feedback?

• You have no knowledge of neurology but speak about things you make up as if they were factual.
• You have no knowledge of the scientific process yet attempt to discredit it.
• You have no knowledge of radiometric dating or the reasons it is valid, and yet you try to claim it's invalid.

Are you starting to see a theme here?[/QUOTE]

 

[logical4u]

Can "you" site scientific "proof" that demonstrates one species morphing into another species?

Let us ask Google
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
The following are four cases of observed speciation. 1) Speciation occured in a strain of
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The whole "common ancestry" thing ignores the possibility that life on this planet was made by design, hence the similarities, we had the same maker.

ID fell flat on its face.


ToE predicted chromosome 2

The BSC has undergone a number of changes over the years. The earliest precursor that I could find was in Du Rietz 1930. Du Rietz defined a species as

"... the smallest natural populations permanently separated from each other by a distinct discontinuity in the series of biotypes."

Barriers to interbreeding are implicit in this definition and explicit in Du Rietz's dicussion of it.
A few years later, Dobzhansky defined a species as

"... that stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more separate arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding." (Dobzhansky 1937)

It is important to note that this is a highly restrictive definition of species. It emphasizes experimental approaches and ignores what goes on in nature. By the publication of the third edition of the book this appeared in, Dobzhansky (1951) had relaxed this definition to the point that is substantially agreed with Mayr's.

The definition of a species that is accepted as the BSC was promulgated by Mayr (1942). He defined species as

"... groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

Note that the emphasis in this definition is on what happens in nature. Mayr later amended this definition to include an ecological component. In this form of the definition a species is

"... a reproductive community of populations (reproductively isolated from others) that occupies a specific niche in nature."


Looks like your side just changes the rules to make their point. If all else fails, just change the definition.

Other than that, it looks like "selective breeding", or crossing species, not morphing into a new species. Thanks for the condemnation, though, if I wanted to use that "style" arguement, I would simply "redefine" the Lord as the physical world around you and tell you: see you can see, hear, smell, taste and touch it, that proves it exists.
You guys are more faithful than most Christians I know. You put your faith in men and Christians put their faith in the Lord. The big difference: Christians admit their beliefs are based on "faith", evolutionists put their faith in "scientific ASSUMPTIONS, THEORY and CONJECTURES.

 

[Diuretic]

You guys are more faithful than most Christians I know. You put your faith in men and Christians put their faith in the Lord. The big difference: Christians admit their beliefs are based on "faith", evolutionists put their faith in "scientific ASSUMPTIONS, THEORY and CONJECTURES.

The interesting thing about the concept of faith is that it's seen to be strongest when the evidence for its object of belief is weakest. A person can be considered to have strong faith when he or she strongly believes something even though there is little or no evidence for its existence. So faith has a place in religion.

Now, does faith have a place in science? Plainly not. Science trades in objectivity. If it can't be falsified then it isn't the subject of science. If there's no hard evidence then it's dismissed as being a topic that can be understood by science.

Faith is praised in religion and ignored in science.

Your assertion that science involves assumptions, theory and conjectures is probably accurate, there are assumptions (since we know certain things we can simply accept them as being constant in terms of their being phenomena, that doesn't apply to the explanations for phenomena), theory has a special meaning in science - think of it as a tentative explanation of the cause of phenomena, conjecture is another word for "hypothesis" which of course is central to the scientific method.

Simply put there's no point in comparing religion and science. They're not necessarily antagonistic to one another although the fundamentalist mindset in religion is certainly antagonistic to science. But that's the mark of the truly ignorant, as in "un-knowing". The truly ignorant prefer religion as the explanation of all physical things because they have a firmly held belief that the explanation for all things is that they were created by a supernatural being. They fear that science will threaten their faith, their belief system. So their faith is held even stronger in an attempt to block out the explanations of science. The more fundamental the views of this individual the more hostile they are to science.

The pity is that many religious people suffer from the backlash against the truly ignorant religionists. The fundamentalist gleefully points to the scientist who is also religious as if it were evidence for their faith without seeing how it shows them, the fundamentalists, in a poor light.

One of the great thinkers of our age, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, wrote the following: "Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems much henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of though must follow this is what evolution is." Of course, some scientists, as well as some philosophers and theologians, disagree with some parts of Teilhard’s teachings; the acceptance of his worldview falls short of universal. But there is no doubt at all that Teilhard was a truly and deeply religious man and that Christianity was the cornerstone of his worldview. Moreover, in his worldview science and faith were not segregated in watertight compartments, as they are with so many people. They were harmoniously fitting parts of his worldview. Teilhard was a creationist, but one who understood that the Creation is realized in this world by means of evolution.

http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

 

[Father Time]

I find it funny that logical is talking about magic when creationism is pretty much 'a being magically created everything'

That is the WHOLE point: evolutionists believe that magic just happened, where those that believe in G*d believe there was a magician.

Evolution isn't magic by any stretch. Things mutate, we know that, and natural selection is not magic. Oh and one can believe in God and evolution.

 

[Nemo Securus]

Ok, so that doesn't exactly answer my questions. If Noah never built an Ark, does that mean that the morals presented in the Bible are nonsense?

The bible teaches no morals and is nonsense as is.

And yes, if the book tell untruths, it's not the infallible word of god, and it loses the authority it claims to has to prescribe any morality at all.

The Bible teaches no morals? What was that movie Charlton Heston did? Oh the TEN COMMANDMENTS. Only some people believe it to be the infallible word of God. Any one with any sense of history knows that mere men had to sort out the Bible and choose what went in it. Still doesn't make me think it is ok to go next door and shoot my neighbor and then sleep with his wife. Sure most people have those morals without following Christianity, but what do you think their anscestors believed and passed down to their parents? How can we even pretend to know what the creationism story was really meant to mean? That itself was a story passed down through generations and generations. The original storytellers that wrote the story may have had some completely other message and reason for telling the story to begin with, one that may not even apply to todays life. And yet still it doesn't make the Ten Commandments stupid. Like it or not, those ten guidelines for life created thousands of years ago are still relevant today. Sounds pretty darn profound to me.

 

[KittenKoder]

Ok, so that doesn't exactly answer my questions. If Noah never built an Ark, does that mean that the morals presented in the Bible are nonsense?

The bible teaches no morals and is nonsense as is.

And yes, if the book tell untruths, it's not the infallible word of god, and it loses the authority it claims to has to prescribe any morality at all.

This is where you fail to get the logic you so desire to have. Logically, anything that talks of good morals has a good purpose to the society who's morals most closely resemble those taught, Aesop fables were all myth, and many quite perverse and frightening, but they teach very good morals and lessons. Why? Because younger minds need those myths to better understand how the morals work and to better remember them. Our brains do not start to understand hard logic until much later in life, in which case you can choose to recite the tales to yourself or simply abide by the laws of the land. Dr. Suess is another such set of fables which teach morals. Even South Park teaches morals to adults (you have to actually watch it to understand them through all the "foul" language and adult oriented jokes). Myths, legends, fables, tales, etc. have always been a teaching tool for both morals and even science. Isaac Asimov has a lot of hard science buried in his fictional books, check out his Opus'.

 

[Setarcos]

The Bible teaches no morals? What was that movie Charlton Heston did? Oh the TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Commandment = Command = Order

An order from a king is not a moral guide, but merely a command given by a king (an order given at the point of a sword)

You've yet to demonstrate any moral teachings from the bible

 

[Setarcos]

KK, the book claims to be the inerrant word of god. If it is not, then its claims fall apart and it loses its presumed 'authority' to command anything.

 

[THE LIGHT]

sure!

Hmm ... yes, you are an extremist since you refuse to learn from more than one source.

And that one source would be?

Bump for KK

 

[Nemo Securus]

The Bible teaches no morals? What was that movie Charlton Heston did? Oh the TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Commandment = Command = Order

An order from a king is not a moral guide, but merely a command given by a king (an order given at the point of a sword)

You've yet to demonstrate any moral teachings from the bible

Once again, that is a translation into English. Also Jewish people of that day may not have had other ways to describe them. Who knows? You and I certainly don't. I would say Jesus definitely offered up some strong moral teachings wouldn't you? You know how he didn't turn people down because of the life they led previously. You can see I'm sure where it is going. The Bible offers up a great way to live your life. Why would you dispute that?

 

[Setarcos]

Once again, that is a translation into English.

If you hold that the translation is inaccurate, you are free to forward a different translation and your case for it.

Also Jewish people of that day may not have had other ways to describe them.

The entire premise is that might makes right. even if a deity had the power to punish you for disobeying, that's no different than a king killing all who oppose his reign. It is law enforced by violence. It is not a 'moral' system as believers claim.

I would say Jesus definitely offered up some strong moral teachings wouldn't you?

The character teaches some interesting ethics and social philosophy. The character, in direct contradiction to the Jewish deity, rejects materialism, teaches his disciples to become homeless wanderers who carry no money, espouses the goodness of leeching off of other' earnings, promotes anarchist and socialist ideals, and rejects formal government (while appealing to a fantasy heaven ruled by a dictator).

Jesus represents the gentile influence on the religion and the Jews' loss of ethnic pride and sense of racial superiority during their subjugation. It is a more submissive philosophy which appeals to the downtrodden who know they cannot fight the current system and which teaches that failure in society (eg: not earning large sums of money or otherwise bending to the staus quo- be it the Jewish or the Roman) can be a good thing. it is a very selfish philosophy, really, which reminds me quite a bit of Eastern thought.

 

[mskafka]

But doesn't the bible say that the earth was made in 6 days, with man/woman on the 6th is it?

Oh wow.

 

[mskafka]

So a day in the bible isn't a day?

So anyways, how does evolution fit in if the bible says that man was made out of dust? Man just plopped down, then evolved?

Correct. It is a God day. You would do well to read. Read more than the first 2 chapters of Genesis, and about history.

 

[mskafka]

And it comes up every couple of months here.

And always, it's a Christian or bible bashing thread, ultimately.

The 'atheists' here are not of the caliber that I am used to. That saddens me because I always enjoyed these sorts of discussions.

So if someone believes that evolution and creationism could go hand in hand...they are automatically branded as an atheist. Interesting thinking.

 

[Care4all]

So a day in the bible isn't a day?

So anyways, how does evolution fit in if the bible says that man was made out of dust? Man just plopped down, then evolved?

stardust...carbon

as with all life, we all began from star dust.

 

[JD_2B]

So a day in the bible isn't a day?

A Genesis day is not the same as a 24 hour day as we presently know it, no. The sun was created before the Earth, so it is totally illogical to apply the logic that a "day" as we currently know it- an Earth day, (the amount of time the Earth takes to make one complete spin) would possibly apply. Thus, a DAY existed before humanly-calculated time did. In this sense, a day is relative..
when you were younger, having to wait a few minutes seemed like a reaalllly long time, because that period of time (say, 5 minutes) was relative to how much time you have been in existence.
Now that you are older, 5 minutes seems to pass much more quickly- because relative to your age and the amount of time you have been in existence, 5 minutes is not as "long" of a time for you to perceive.
When you were little, and small, all trees probably looked pretty big, and all adults as well. Now that you are full grown, trees and adults do not seem so giant.. It is all about relativity here. A day to God may be several million or a billion years even. Seems like it is just a day, to him.. so he calls it a day. Maybe to God, a day is less to do with how much time can be measured, and is more to do with how much good work that is done is measured.

So anyways, how does evolution fit in if the bible says that man was made out of dust? Man just plopped down, then evolved?

stardust...carbon

as with all life, we all began from star dust.

I love that!! =) <3 That was cute..

I am absolutely sure there is some scientific credence to there being carbon on earth before life, and before humans were formed.. Nobody here (to my knowledge anyways) believes that someone waved a wand to make everything appear by magic..

But I did see a contrast between the concept that the evolutionists believe (paraphrasing for effect) everything got "plopped" here by a bang of magic, whereas the creationists believe there was a magician behind the magic. (really a good- a PERFECT use of words by that poster.. that was so cute!)

One thing I still need answering, though-

If evolution is not a religion- then why do evolutionists always post in the religion and ethics forum, rather than the science forum? I find it amusing that certain die-hard gung-ho evolutionists (who are really probably just anti god people, seeking a justification for it or something) sit here screaming about how nobody here seems to understand anything they say, and look at all the science- its science, its science- and all this is taking place (by their own choice) in the RELIGION forum.

LMFAO!!

 

[gcomeau]

If evolution is not a religion- then why do evolutionists always post in the religion and ethics forum, rather than the science forum?

Because the only people denying reality on the subject are doing it for religious reasons, and are thus found doing so... guess where?