Why does evolutionary science seem to be

quote:

---

This is a general reply because several of you responded. My goodness, there are many who have used evolution to disprove the Bible. The creation account in Genesis. Noah. The age of the earth. Are you saying I'm making this up? That evolution supports these things in the Bible?

---

I don't think people have used evolution to disprove the Bible, merely Bible inerrancy. Not the same thing.

quote:

---

No, evolution goes against the Bible in certain places and that's just a fact. I think the most important thing is Adam and Eve and original sin. If that is wrong then there's no point to Jesus and I might just as well then quit going to church and get drunk every saturday night. I'd rather sleep in anyway.

---

This is a good statement of the problem. However, it relies on the logical fallacies of the Slippery Slope and the False Dilemma, implying that there exist only two positions: The Bible is totally and utterly inerrant or totally and utterly wrong.In practice, there exist a range of possibilities within that range. Even an out-and-out athiest like me accepts the historicality of some of the Bible and the vast majority of Christians accept that some of the Bible is allegorical or, in places, just wrong.However, there is a sense in which evolution can be used against religion:Dawkin's argument is that before evolutionary theory atheism was as much a belief structure as theism, since the problem of origins still remained. Even Hume stumbled on this point.Dawkins argued that Evolution by Natural Selection, in providing a naturalistic explanation for life, made it possible, for the first time, to be an atheist for naturalistic reasons.

Mike,Thanks for the support on the other thread with M. Yeshua makes the point quite clearly that when the seed is sown, without understanding, it is lost at once. So, preparing the way of the Lord means helping the blind get understanding.Stephen

the biblical stories, including the creation myth, were a way for ancient people to explain a reality they could not comprehend. these stories, especially the conquest stories and exodus, were most likely created to impress the other cultures in the area that had the same kinds of conquest stories in their mythologies. creating a history for the isrealites also created their cultural bonds. now they could be a "people". our dilemma--people take these myths as literally true and historical. (if you don't believe what i just wrote, please, do some research)no where does evolution say, "the bible is incorrect." what we should say is that the objectively gathered evidences in the fields of archeology, anthropology, biology, etc. do not support the biblical stories. so the biblical stories are not scientific? they weren't meant to be.

Well, this topic has been quiet for over a day, so I'm going to bring up the flip side of the title question.This topic's title, as started in the title, and completed in the first sentence of message 1:

quote:

---

Why does evolutionary science seem to be (So hell bent on dispelling the reality of a creator?)

---

I flip that to:Why does creation science seem to be (So hell bent on dispelling the reality of the creation?)What are you to believe? What you can see in a book about the creation, or what you can see in the creation?Or, as JonF (I believe) put it (concerning the earth's geology):

quote:

---

Man wrote the Bible - God wrote the rocks

---

The "creation scientists" are either unable or unwilling to read what is contained in the creation.Moose

---

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

Evolution, can it be verified, falsified, or repeated? For what it is worth, this is probably the most intimate question I have ever had the honor of being presented with in my life. I think this is a task we should look to with all due diligence, where there is a will there is a way.How can we deny the probability of a creator of such a wondrous creation? Rather than deny, how do we pursue seeking this creator, while not be religious? But then again isn't science in a sense, religious?[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-09-2004]

lol, look how far we are with 14gipper.

Jagz,Do you want to see a recreation in the lab of three billion years' worth of evolution? Well, sorry, that's not possible. It's also not possible to show you the Battle of Antietam, or the Earth revolving around the Sun. However, the process of inference from observations certainly does tell us what happened and is still happening.The mechanisms and processes involved in evolution (the hereditary system of DNA, embryology, natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) are verifiable, testable, and falsifiable. This site will provide you with some falsifiable points related to evolutionary theory. These points are what science is all about, and what separates theory from guesswork.I'm second to no one in my sense of wonder at the amazing development of life on Earth. If that's what you mean by religious, I agree. But I'm facing up to reality, and the scientific basis of our knowledge. I can't say the same for people who deny that species evolve, regardless of their reasons for closing their eyes to reality.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Well put!

Wow how sweet. Yet why do I have this urge to hurl? My eyes are not wide shut.Please feel free to explain to me, for I am ignorant of this evolution process that has allowed the bonds of heredity to be broken throughout the process of your evolution theory to allow existence of the simple cell to evolve to the 100 trillion celled being that is man.Though there are many species of a finch, a finch is still a finch, and so to is man still a man though there are yellow, red, and brown ones. There are limits to the theory, limits which I cannot deny, nor close my eyes too. I can by no means look to evolution as reality, though its theory is a part of it.Simple question how do we take a single cell and allow it to be transformed to this 100 trillion cell being while yet escaping the many bounds of heredity, and the laws of the universe? To say that the process from this one cell to this trillion cell being was a result of mutations to me is a laugh.My understanding is that everything is on the verge of decay and that there are boundaries of our heredity cycle. Between the boundaries, and laws; how in the world does this simple cell overcome such enormous obstacles over all these millions of years to boot? I'm ROFLMAO... Is evolutionary science deliberately taking a species ability to adapt out of context?[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-09-2004]

Could you explain to us how you come to this "understanding"? Because nothing of what you're saying sounds like any of the biology I've studied.

Jagz,Does it make you laugh that one cell can become a multicellular creature? It happens every time an egg is fertilized inside a mother and grows into a baby. I'm amazed at how complex and unlikely the process of embryology is. And it's determined by the genetic functions of the DNA system alone.Sure, it's amazing and unlikely that life has developed on Earth the way it has, but there's no use in denying reality and calling upon magical thresholds like the 'bounds (or bonds) of heredity' you mention. The processes of DNA replication and natural selection are nothing short of miraculous in and of themselves. The more we understand about them the more impressed we are with the reality of Nature.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

First of all know and understand that Miracles are supernatural in origin, or acts of God if you will hehe. Conception as wonderous as it may seem or appear to be is by no means a supernatural process, I promise you it is quiet a natural process that.First of all, know and understand that all cells are programmed. A simple cell is not programmed to divide into a trillioned cell being such as a man. To say that it has evolved to this status in few hundred million years is a joke, especially when you consider the obstacles. People have been asking me about the boundaries... Why act so smart yet so ignorant is beyond me. Could another name for RNA be a fence to divide us in our individual genetic locations? Some of you are really smart, please help me understand why a woman having sex with a horse doesn't get pregnant, even though she is ovulating. There's more to the theory evolution than what one can learn in biology books or journals..."All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder, disorganization, disarrangement and less complexity.".[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-10-2004]

quote:

---

Though there are many species of a finch, a finch is still a finch, and so to is man still a man though there are yellow, red, and brown ones. There are limits to the theory, limits which I cannot deny, nor close my eyes too. I can by no means look to evolution as reality, though its theory is a part of it.

---

Hmm, the good ol' Kinds argument. Maybe you could help me decide which Kind man is in. Just remember the following:Humans always begat humans. . . .
Primates alwyas begat primates . . .
Mammals always begat mammals. . .
Chordates always begat chordates . . .
Animals always begat animals . . .
Eukaryotes always begat eukaryotes . . .Well, things with DNA, RNA, and protein always begat things with DNA, RNA, and protein. Hmm, I wonder how far back this "Kind" thing goes? Maybe you could tell me how I can draw a line between mammals and primates, just for a start.

You know I think it is funny how different species can copulate. Yet to me defining a species that can copulate and conceive of one another is kind of like lying. How do we define species that can not copulate or produce offspring of one another? You’d think that’s what species meansTo me it's weird how though finches come in so many different species, yet they can still interbreed with eachother. I don't like the methods we use to break down species. Why we could use the same methods on man, well we do in a sense with the term race, but whats keeping science from breaking man down like they have the finch?[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-10-2004][This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-10-2004]

quote:

---

To me it's weird how though finches come in so many different species, yet they can still interbreed with eachother. I don't like the methods we use to break down species. Why we could use the same methods on man, well we do in a sense with the term race, but whats keeping science from breaking man down like they have the finch?

---

JM: You're waffling. The question is HOW do you break them down? How do you define where one 'kind' ends and a new one begins? One of the biggest cop-outs of creationists on all levels (geology, biology, genetics etc) is their reluctance to provide specifics on any topic. We see it with the flood, we see it with kinds. What we don't see is any creationist willing to put their neck on the line and get specific. You willing?CheersJoe Meert