Quiz and Evolutionary Biology

'What about what I mean to him? I attempt to read his direct word.'If God made man with words in man's mouth, why would he let you or want you to read from nature? Isn't it more logical for him to talk to you through language or from words in a book? Be honest Ned, surely there's a chance I'm right with that logic - What book then is likely to be his word? Obviously you can check all the books yourself but even I am positive about which one you'd probably pick.'He is a mystery, we do not know the mind of God. That will have to wait.'Have you read the new testament? Can't harm you to can it? Why not ask Why?

God seems to have decided that there were some important messages about why we are here and how we are to behave. These needed to be said early on before we could really read the word of the creation.In addition, I don't see how these could be written into the creation in a way that we would understand back then or even now.What would the bible be like if all that is written into nature was crammed into it? It would have been huge and incomprehensible to those people millenia ago. The message of *how* the creation works is clearly not as important as the message that is in the bible so it has been left for us to figure out a little at a time over these intervening millenia.I have read a good deal of the NT, not in one go though. I think there are important things for us to learn there. It is too bad you wish to bury those messages under false messages of how things work. Read both books Mike. There is lots to learn.

'It is too bad you wish to bury those messages under false messages of how things work. Read both books Mike. There is lots to learn. 'I only believe in these messages you have mentioned. Do you really think creation science is the thing I put first. You said there are things to be learned of the bible, I put these things first. You know already I am open minded Ned, (line of skulls). The only reason I have stayed up late is that there was a chance you might read it. Do you believe in Christ then? What about his messages?(I only come to the evc to talk of creation science for discussion, my real job is to read and do God's word as you rightly said. Please don't make a false picture of who I am in your mind).

I agree with many of the messages in the bible. I don't happen to believe in a God. I don't know about Christ.You have used the phrase "creation science". That is exactly what I mean about reading the word of God in the wrong place. For how things work you have to read the direct word. Clearly when you don't you get it wrong. It is hard enough to get it half way right when you do. No one said He had to make it simple for us, just give us the capability to learn through use of our minds.If you wish to use the indirect word of God for things it clearly wasn't intended then you do great damage. That can not be the what God wishes of you.

You're changing the definition of "miracle". The relevant definition is "occurence in violation of natural law". You're now using it to mean "something really special".The latter type of miracle fills science. The former is forbidden in science.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 11-02-2003]

What does ANY of this have to do with whether macroevolution occurs?????????Macroevolution is large scale change. There's no exact cut-off point known (although many creationists insist the limit is "within kind", which is a meaningless statement). But let's say something along the lines of dinosaur to bird or reptile to mammal almost certainly counts.None of your comments relate to this!

quote:

---

Therefore, organisms that have allegedly mac-evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring.

---

All organisms now living have had the same length of time to evolve. None are "more" or "less" evolved. Today's bacteria are not "primordial". They have as long of an evolutionary history as we do.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 11-02-2003]

Wow, you were serious. You did put this up for Post of the Month.Which I kind of agree with, because it's such a superb, pure example of a basic creationist misunderstanding of scientific terminology. In a way, that deserves special mention.

I used it because no matter how you try and make the toe a fact, the word theory(or scientific theory) does not, literaly mean fact. If evolution is a 100 percent fact, then I want to see the time machine you used to come to this conclusion. I will then go with you to the past and then agree I am related to a 'common ancestor'. Remember it was you who said we can never fully know history. Also, some rather dubious 'posts of the month' have been very easily achieved by evo's. So I thought it a nice change to see some true facts established.

Mike, I just took the trouble to find and paste a short explanation of how scientists use the words "fact" and "theory" for you. That was post #55 in this thread.Instead of reading it and learning from it, you ignored it and decided to remain ignorant.How sad and wasteful and foolish it is that you refuse to learn and correct yourself.I am begining to believe that explaining thigs to you is an exercise in futility.I am genuinely disappointed in this outcome.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-02-2003]

quote:

---

I used it because no matter how you try and make the toe a fact, the word theory(or scientific theory) does not, literaly mean fact.

---

Correct.That evolution occurs is a fact.The explanation of how it occurs is a theory.Read message #55 in this thread.

quote:

---

If evolution is a 100 percent fact, then I want to see the time machine you used to come to this conclusion.

---

We don't need a time machine.We observe evolution both in the field and in the lab every day.

quote:

---

I will then go with you to the past and then agree I am related to a 'common ancestor'. Remember it was you who said we can never fully know history.

---

You said that you didn't expect science to have perfect knowledge, but clearly you do, as the above statement illustrates.What you are doing is completely rejecting what we do know because we don't know everything.I suppose you reject the Germ Theory of Disease because we do not have perfect knowledge of every germ and every disease, correct?

MikeTake a run over to free for all and read my post on doubt and science and you will have a hopefully better understanding of the structure of evolutions status as knowledge.

"theory" means "testable explanatory framework"."fact" means "true statement".Would you argue that Americans can't be female, because "female" doesn't exactly mean "American"?Your statment on "theory" and "fact" makes precisely the same error. That may not seem obvious to you, because you're clinging to the wrong definition of "theory". But it is, in fact, the same error.

'Correct.That evolution occurs is a fact.'So you can show me a common ancestor turn into a new species?'How sad and wasteful and foolish it is that you refuse to learn and correct yourself.'No, this is simply where you and I disagree, I am open minded about scientific theories.This really is quite funny, because all I am trying to show is the difference between fact and theory. That is the ONLY reason Quiz won my vote. Because I have read what you posted. But like Zhimbo says if we don't have the full picture how can we make the rest of the picture up? If you have a time machine you can know for sure.I've also mentioned other reasons why I don't think evolution is a fact. Whether you say it's a fact or not, or whether it claims to be a fact or not, these evidences against it aren't going away.

I have now read what you copied for me. I am sorry I was impatient and didn't give the statement it's deserved attention. If fact is just accumulation of evidence (in science) then maybe I am wrong in persuing this argument as what I am talking about is 'absolute certainty'. I accept there seems to be evidence for evolution. I will never myself call it fact, but if you want, I must concede the point because I am talking about absolutes. Is it true there are no absolutes in science?'What you are doing is completely rejecting what we do know because we don't know everything.'Maybe I am guilty. One thing is for sure , I am no scientist and am aware of my lack of success towards science. But don't count me out yet, as my ears are open, and as I have always said, the FACT is I am probably wrong.