Key points of Evolution

I see your point, but should we really ask for them? You guys like that word Strawman. I have been to college, My credentials are not in biology.. I am just like you though I have spent a considerable amount of time researching, I guess that is why when I see people ask for credentials it rubs me the wrong way...lol then encourage them to research. (special word there.. encourage)

---

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ IIX:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

Personally, I don't, though I'll listen to a person who does have a PhD in a specific field in a much different way than I do with those who make silly arguments like "there is no evidence for evolution."I was merely pointing out the reason T4C was asking for them, and refuting your claim that we "hide behind credentials." "Strawman" is flung about frequently because it is without doubt the most common logical fallacy we see around here.Personally, while credentials in the specific field being discussed do certainly lend additional credibility to a poster, I otherwise consider credentials to be irrelevant. As I often say, the argument is everything. Solid arguments will speak for themselves without the need for letters after a name. Weak arguments will be broken regardless of the person making them. Typically, when a new poster appears and has obvious misconceptions regarding the topics at hand, we gently direct them to threads where they can learn more, or directly try to help educate them and show them what a given theory actually says.This, of course, is dependent on a number of factors. If a person's first post consists of meaningless, sarcastic, incredulous drivel, I for one am not inclined to respond in the "gentle" tone I use for respectful posters who are willing to learn.And of course sometimes I'm just cranky like anyone else.

antiLIE writes

quote:

---

lol... like that matters, you all try to hide behind empty credentials and self absorbed titles. They mean nothing. Trying to tear down a person does not prove your point.. stay on topic please.

---

Nobody is trying to tear anyone down. It just that I have to question your background in this stuff because what you have said so far have been so off the wall I don't even know where to begin. You said in a later post that we like to use the word strawman a lot. Well, that's true. But it doesn't negate the fact that so far I have not seen anything from you but strawman.If you're going to criticize something, at least get to know it a little before criticizing it. Otherwise, you're just demonstrating the typical Christian attitude, and I say this as a faithful believer in Christ.A few months ago, I read an article that reported on a survey on people's perception of Christianity nowadays. A significant portion of people out there have the impression that Christianity walks hand-in-hand with ignorance, arrogance, and hypocrisy. I don't blame them for thinking that way. So many people nowadays who claim to believe in Christ also exhibit all of those traits.

Hope your not talking to me...lol. if you are.. What am I criticising? Credentials?, I know about those.. trust me.. and after reading your other posts, I have to ask.. what Christ do you serve?

---

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

Rahvin, i liked all of your rebuttals... no refuting here... lol

---

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

Really? So your comment about my not being able to use a keyboard was meant to build me up? WOW, I really do feel refreashed. Thanks!!Edited by seekingthetruth, : No reason given.

Welcome to the fray, seekingthetruth: I wonder if you really are. Not really. Evolution, like all science is about truth, regardless of preconceptions. To be "anti" something you have to be actively against it, and science is not against any single idea that stands up to the evidence and to testing.There are many christians that have no problems with evolution, so evolution cannot be anti- to their beliefs: the problem is not evolution. This book is just by one of them.Evolution is a very simple truth: no two organisms are identical, and the differences between individual organisms result in different ability to survive and reproduce and pass on genes that - however small the difference - over generations means that all types/pools/kinds/groups of organisms, no matter how you choose to sort them, change over time. Evolution is inevitable.If what you believe is contradicted by this simple truth it is not the fault of the truth. Fanatic hindus - to speak in general terms - don't like evolution because it doesn't use up enough time for their dogma. But the problem for them is the same as it is for anyone of faith not founded on facts:If what you believe is not the truth then what you believe is not true.Evolution has nothing to do with it, it is about truth.That the earth is over 4.5 billion years old has nothing to do with evolution, it is about the truth.That geological science shows that no world wide flood happened has nothing to do with evolution, it is about the truth.That physics and astronomy show that the universe is over 13.7 billion years old has nothing to do with evolution, it is about the truth. Nope. Somebody lied to you or you weren't paying attention, or you didn't understand, or ... the root cause is immaterial, the fact is that you are wrong. Time to do some real truth seeking? So much for the search for truth -- you are already in denial, and you haven't even learned the basics: how science works. All life is built the same way from amino acids with DNA and RNA. These ARE the same material by definition. Hint: one is food the other uses to grow ...Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added topocal comments

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

First of all, I agree with chiroptera, most of this isn't on topic, especially all of this nonsense about strawmen and credentials, I can't even follow who started that. But, there are two items brought up that are on topic, first why the points in the book should be taught in the classroom, and second, whether there is a conflict between the Bible and evolution.First, why should these points be taught in school? Because they are correct. I think this quite clearly state how trees and humans are similar. As for all the discussion of the big bang, I will neglect that, since evolution doesn't concern itself with the big bang. In fact the book in the OP doesn't talk about the big bang. The point is that you can very easily see that all life is related and that life evolves, without knowing where it comes from. The origin of the earth, life, and the universe is an entirely different question, and one that isn't even taught in a typical evolutionay biology lecture. By the way, who is "us?"As for the evolution conflicting with faith topic, now you have some explaining to do. You need to show how one of these two points: conflicts with your religious belief. That is the whole point of Roughgarden's book, that neither of these two statements actually contradicts any portion of the Bible. In fact, many portions of the Bible tend to support these statements. If God created both plants and animals, then aren't we all united in a big Family Tree? Isn't this actually a Christian message?

---

You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith

even if you say it over and over you can not make it true.
----------------
Key points of Evolution;
- There are fossils, geology, cosmology, microbiology, and biology
- To deny this, you are saying that Evolution is only biology.
- I have college "Biology" text books that teach paleontology, geology and cosmology to push the principals of evolution theory. Evolution has to have vast amounts of time to work according to naturalists. So they have to involve these other scientific fields in order to have evolution.
- What is funny, is that every ones eyes are different. The evidence you have for evolution you are seeing through evolution colored glasses. The same evidence proves creation when viewed by creationists. However I realize that this never matters to either side. The individual is always right, from a certain point of view. (obi-wan kenobi logic)

---

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

Wow, really? What a profound insight. I hope you realise that it also works in reverse. Huh? Deny that there are fossils? You really could have phrased that better. Suffice to say that none of those are key points of the theory of evolution, although some provide evidence to support it and microbiology and biology as a whole both incorporate and utilise the theory of evolution.Also, guess what; biological evolution is only biology. The fact that other fields of study are necessary to understand natural history is simply due to the fact that reality is complex and interrelated. Reality tends not to come in discrete little boxes, each marked with its own exclusive and non-overlapping field of study. Biologists do need vast amounts of time for their theory to work. So do geologists. Guess what. When you look at the Earth, the solar system and the universe as a whole, you see ample evidence of an old Earth and an old universe. All you have demonstrated is that fields of scientific study overlap and that often it is required that one understand something from Field A to explain something from Field B.The way you describe the process almost makes it sound like biologists are saying to their geologist colleagues "No, that's still not long enough! Go back and come up with a better answer.", which is just a fantasy.Evolution has occurred for billions of years. Therefore, we need to know that the Earth has existed for billions of years in order to understand evolution. It all sounds fairly non-controversial to me. So people tend to think that they themselves are right. Wow. You really are presenting some startlingly original ideas today.Of course, one of these interpretations of the evidence is correct and one is wrong. Or maybe both are wrong. Perhaps you might like to put your money where your mouth is and say what you actually think is right, instead of sniping away at people, in messages that amount to little more than "Both sides are so dumb and I am so clever...lol".

---

Mutate and Survive

We should not confuse the fact of evolution with the theories about how it exactly came about. To establish that evolution took place "one way or the other", it is irrelevant how much time was available or what we know about mechanisms. The observation that different organisms share parts of the genetic code, even non-functional parts, in a pattern that matches heredity (plus other observations concerning morphology etc) is enough in itself to infer common descent/evolution. Only when you start to speculate about the mechanism, and consider mutations and natural selection, it becomes useful to have evidence for timeframes in the order of magnitude of millions/billions of years in order to make the numbers match up. You are quite mistaken. Maybe it's time to visit The scientific case for common descent, so you can decide for yourself; fact is that some of the evidence will only make the slightest sense if you "view it through evolution-colored glasses". Any other glasses will give you a collection of meaningless trivia.

Actually, since all scientific theories are tentative and can be falsified, they should be taught in science class not because they're correct, since that ain't necessarily so, but because a scientific consensus has formed around them and so they are currently accepted by the scientific community. What we like to say about scientific consensus is not that a theory is true because it is accepted, but that it is accepted because it is likely true, and this has to do with the supporting evidence and the strength of coherence with related fields that makes it persuasive to the greater proportion of scientists.--Percy

What like if you never say it then it is false? LOL... no i get what you mean.. and my reply is, of course I know that. Huh? Deny that there are fossils? You really could have read that better. you are saying that fossils, geology, cosmology, microbiology, and biology are not key points of evolution... wow Is that really what you are getting out of my posts? If so .. That is not at all what I mean at all.. I by no means am clever. I just like pointing out the flaws of 'my side' of the argument as well. I see creation when I see the evidence. It is all about how it is presented.

---

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

You saying that evolution is a fact, is the same as myself saying creation is a fact.calling evolution a fact, is not a keypoint to the theory

---

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

I'd like to request that participants deemphasize the rhetorical one-upsmanship and focus on the specifics of the topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director