Evolution for Dummies and Christians

Sorry, but you haven't proven evolution one bit. The science of phrenology was accepted by the scientific community in the 19th century and was later proven false. The 3 previous "missing links" were also at one time accepted by the scientific community and later proven a hoax. Scientists have also changed their minds about the age of the earth in every decade which was also accepted by the scientific community and rejected for newer ages. And scientists will continue to replace their old thoeries with new ones until the end of time. So all they've shown is that cannot be trusted. Sorry.

quote:

---

And scientists will continue to replace their old thoeries with new ones until the end of time.

---

Wow, and to think, most scientists consider this to be the great thing about science. The come up with a theory, a way to test it, then based on the results refine the theory. This does not show dishonesty. It shows integrity and a willingness to persue the truth even if it disagrees with their current model. Something that YEC's could stand to learn from. You have shown that you are ignorant to the scientific method.
Sorry.

Carico,If you don't trust science, then please be consistent and don't trust your doctor when he prescribes medical treatment for life-threatening illnesses. Better to suffer or even die than to trust science, right? And maybe you could write to your power company and ask them to cut you off, because electricity is something scientists came up with, and you can't really trust them, can you? Oh, and chuck out your computer, it's working relies on quantum mechanics, which is science pur sang, not to be trusted.Seriously, do you realise how much the results of science permeate your every day life? Televisions, cell phones, cars, airplanes, refrigerators, computers, solar powered devices, satelite dishes, clothing, the weather forecast, food safety. You name it, science had something to do with it. Your life is chock-full of the results of science. Without science, your comfy existence would be a nightmare, or you might even have died already. If you don't want to be better informed about science than you are, then the least you could do is show some gratitude.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-Dec-2005 11:55 AM

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

How is it a great thing about science that they prove themselves wrong in every generation? How does that make their theories trustworthy? And why would any rational human being believe people who change their minds all the time? Believing scientists is putting your faith in shifting sand, my friend. All you get from fallible minds is fallibility.

Well, what do you believe is the proper response to expanding knowledge? Surely it's better to change your models when you get new evidence that they can't quite explain, then to keep asserting the same wrong things in the face of a steadily-increasing mountain of disconfirming evidence. Isn't it?Why is never changing your mind about something better? Isn't it better to be as right as possible at any one time, and then, when you learn something new, incorporate that into your thinking?What do you think it is that causes scientists to change their mind about something? Just whim? Or do you think maybe they only do that when they learn something they didn't know before?

I don't trust my doctor! All the medications I've been given have been pulled off the shelf! So I'm very consistent. The only times that scientists are right is when they agree with God's laws. If scientists always want to be right then they should agree with God. If they always want to be wrong, then they should disagree with God. It's that simple. And scientists themselves have proven that when they disagree with God, their theories change faster than the weather and are replaced with new ones. So which science do you believe? Today's science? Or tomorrow's science that corrects today's science?This message has been edited by Carico, 12-07-2005 01:16 PMThis message has been edited by Carico, 12-07-2005 01:18 PM

Hey Carico... do you belive the earth revolves around the sun or the sun around the earth?Last time I checkd God's law was wrong on that one.

These conversations are all moot because animals and humans are not capable of interbreeding and exchanging genes. But again, it makes great sci-fi material!

Carico. You have been repeating this same point in several threads. Have you bothered to read anyones refutations?You are compleatly, utterly, wrong. You don't understand evolution or how it works. Would you like to understand it?

To which scripture are you referring?

So how can animals and humans exchange genes if we cannot breed with each other?

Animals and humans DON'T exchange genes. This is not what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) says. ToE describes the process by which a given population of organisms change, geneticaly, over time.This "genetic drift" is caused by random mutation of the genome during reproduction. Think of your siblings, you don't look exactly like them do you? Now think about your grandparents, you probably look even more unlike them as well. This is due to small changes in the DNA which causes various similarities and differences to express themselves.ToE is much more complicated than this but your imediate family is a good example for explanatory purposes. Now imagine, if you will, those changes going back several hundred generations. I bet your ancestors 1000 years ago look way WAY different than you do today.Now imagine your ancestors 6 million years ago. Well, those ancestors didn't even look like modern humans ToE is basically little changes over vast amounts of time that compound uppon themselves to make big changes in the future.Do you have that so far? Let me know. And I will explain further as to why we say men are descended from a common ancestor with apes.This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-07-2005 01:46 PMThis message has been edited by Yaro, 12-07-2005 01:50 PM

It is not that scientific theories are discarded wholesale. They are modified to be improved versions. Much/most of the previous content remains being considered valid.It is not that scientists show ("prove") themselves to be completely wrong. It's that scientists show themselves to be less than completely right. There is alway room for improvement in a theory.Many mainstream Christians also have found that there is room for improvement in their theology. It is the fundementialists that are stuck in the "it's all right or it's all wrong" line of reasoning.MooseThis message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-07-2005 01:57 PM

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

I've heard all of what you said for 30 years before I became a Christian. But again, it overlooks the original premise of how offspring are produced. We cannot even begin to get into populations without addressing the feasibility of how even one creature in that population was created. So that is what needs to be examined before the rest of the theory can even be looked at.So again, how did 2 primates breed an offspring so different than themselves to be given the name of a new species; namely,a "Homonid" ? This has never happened since the beginning of recorded history because again, there is a natural sperme barrier between humans and animals that makes interbreeding impossible.All of us humans are capable of interbreeding with our ancestors...except the ape. So how can we be the descendants of an ape if we cannot breed with it? You do not seem to understand that a species which cannot produce offspring of another species with whom it cannot breed cannot be the ancestor of descendants it cannot produce! And that is the issue I want to discuss. Thank you.

Sir, with all due respect, you don't understand the theory. I am explaining it to you. It has nothing to do with, origins, or first offspring, or anything you just mentioned.Before the rest of the theory is "looked at" you first need to have a basic grasp of the theory. You don't have to agree with it, but you should first understand it. First, you are expecting two ancient primates to one day, have sex, and out pops a human. That's absurd and that isn't what happens. Remember what I said before? ToE is "genetic drift" (change) in a POPULATION over time.Several million years ago a population of ancient primates were isolated from the rest. Over time, these creatures began to change thrugh random mutation acted upon by natural selection. At some point in this process our common ancestor with apes arose.A common ancestor means we are both related to this creature. Modern apes would be your like your cusins. Our common ancestor would be like your grandparents.Do you understand this so far? Carico, by this point you should understand that the ToE does not require crossbreeding humans and animals. Do you understand this?ABE: If you are not following any of the points so far. Please ask me to elaborate on what is confusing you.This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-07-2005 02:14 PM