What to believe, crisis of faith

The FACT of evolution is simply this: a change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.This happens, it is an observed fact.

---

The THEORY of Evolution (TOE): Common descent with modification over time. The process of natural selection, working on genetic variation to produce a change in a population over time.The theory is meant to explain the fact.

---

Asgara
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

I want to set the record straight here. The statement "It is not fact." was made by iano, not by me. I assume this was just an accidental cut/paste error. But it does have the effect of appearing to misquote me. It cannot be dismissed as a figure of speech. It is, more properly, a strawman that creationists keep putting up just so that they can knock it down.Microevolution is enough to account for biological diversity. The macro/micro argument used by creationists is bogus. You need to be careful there. Psychologists have investigated eyewitness observation reports, and there is considerable evidence to suggest that they are often less reliable than inferred facts. I'm a mathematician and computer scientist, not a biologist. But I would assume that it is used in both plant breeding and animal breeding - both important for agriculture.

I see that Asgara has already answered you but no, speciation has been observed, evolution has been observed. As to the distinction between Micro and Macro evolution, that exists only in the minds of Creationists.And so far the ONLY explanation that has withstood testing is the TOE. Until someone can put forward another possible explanation the ONLY game in town is TOE.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Figure of speech "ants to antelopes". Point being that microevolution and macroevolution are not the same thing. not least Microevolution can be seen to happen - objective. Macroevolution can't - Theory.

---

So, this means that if you can not tell me the height, weight, eye color, hair color, and place of birth of your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather, I can say that it's only a theory and not a fact that this person existed?

quote:

---

Still wondering about Population Genetics. Is there any practical use other than internally to ToE (ie: to explain ToE) and if so can it be explained using microevolution which is obeservable and thus is not being contended here as being ToE

---

message #248

No, it's not. Look, every living thing is the way it is because of the genetic content of its cells. And all cells store genetic material in exactly the same way - the macromolecule called DNA. The compatibility is universal; I know this first-hand. The only reason my dad is still alive is because of this universal compatibility; as a diabetic he's completely dependant on human insulin produced by E. coli bacteria which were inserted with the human gene for the insulin hormone.The change from "White-man-to-yellow-man" and "ant-to-antelope" is the same kind of change - a change in the genetic sequence of cells. The change is more radical in the second than in the first, of course, but the fundamental nature of the change is the same. I didn't say that it was a fact. I said that its basis was factual; that is, the theory is based on facts. That's what scientific theories are based on - facts.Theories don't become facts; that's not how it works. Theories are supported by facts, and when a theory becomes supported by an overwhelming, diverse body of fact, we conclude that the theory has been proven. The theory of evolution has met that standard.

No, you're not still wondering. I presented the practical applications in a post to you, which you replied to, but apparently ignored that section of my statements to you.

Which we do have. Which is evidence that he doesn't exist. Don't you read the Bible? God says that we have the same ability to judge right from wrong as all gods do.

But I didn't say either of those statements. Reading problems? Where did I say that "evolution is fact"?

I've seen you claim this before. This is your interpretation and I think it is wrong. The bible said we became like the gods but it didn't say we're the same as them.

It sure seems as though Genesis says we have the same knowledge of right and wrong as GOD.Genesis 3: That certainly sounds as though there is no difference.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, no reading problems, just making sure i understand your point before i make an incorrect assumption. Not the same thing: 1 God didn't abandon us, He does guide us if were willing to listen to Him. 2 God doesn't have to do us any favors, we were created in His own image, He expects us to do some things for ourselves. We're just supposed to know the difference, He judges us. He is all powerful, He doesn't need our approval, Love, devotion, any of that. He IS above all. Only in regards to human nature. I have been shown things normally confined to the depths of hell.

Well, my Bible says "as Gods", and I think the metaphor is clear that, in regards to moral sense, we have the same faculty that divine beings do. If there's a difference in regards to that moral sense its certainly not specified in the Bible.

King James version: When I saw CF make this claim before his quote, iirc, had the word 'like' in it. And he claimed it said that we had the same knowledge of G&E that god has. I pointed out that our knowledge could be like his while his could be different than ours.It doesn't really matter though. The versions are too different to know what its really suppose to mean.

didn't see this before mine went through. I just don't think its that clear, that we are the same as the divine. Yeah, it just isn't clear enough to me. I don't really feel like arguing about this anymore.