Don't Believe In Evolution?....give Us Your Theory Christians

[RationalOkie]

If you can construct a logically consistent theory that explains the available evidence better than the current theories of abiogenisis and evolution, I'm willing to hear it out.

Me too! Come to think of it, I might start a thread on that. Oh wait, I've already done that. It's called "Don't Believe In Evolution?....give Us Your Theory Christians" Surely there's someone from the {making quotes with fingers} Intelligent Design crowd on here.

 

Have you noticed how many xtians now claim to accept "MOST" of evolution. How did that happen? Answer: While they were busy trying to figure out how to shoot US down they learned some things. They came in like this guy from www.revelife.com

I understand that sometimes the arguments against Creation can seem convincing, but my only question to the post's author alone is this - will you be trusting in your teacher and trying to find some other than Godly reason for explaining what can only be explained through understanding the attributes of God, or will you trust that not only is your Creator able to speak things into existence, but that He has also chosen, lovingly, to reveal parts of Himself through His creation. Through Creation, we know that God is

Loving - He has given us multitudes of natural beauty to adore, to be comforted by, etc

Creative - The stripes on a Zebra, the funny way a cat pounces on a ball of yarn, the majestic height of a Sequoia, the mysteries of the deepest oceans...

Wise - Have you examined the complexity of a single strand of DNA, or wondered at the human pupil? It's upside down, actually. He knew that was the best way of providing sight for us to enjoy the above...

We learn so much from the fact that God alone, in His abilities, created the earth. To rob Him of His total, and singular involvement is to try to rob Him of some of His attributes. That's a playground I won't be playing on...

If they pay attention and learn something they morph into this guy:

Yes, I believe in evolution and that God created life. The two beliefs can co-exist. God made everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Who is to say how long one of those days was? I do not take everything in the bible literally. Also, I share the same thought as you, that evolution means organisms change over time and that does not mean that God isn't the author of that ability or of life itself.

6/25/2009 10:50 AM lotjiujeurng@xanga (message) reply

With any luck to this:

6/25/2009 1:24 AM Rain_of_Mystic_Sorrow@xanga

I'd say gluing christianity to the bible when so few people read it is one mistake..

 

evolution and creation (or however the argument titles go..) aren't such a huge deal for those who are older, i'd say, because as a small child you would wonder, but growing up in our world with so many unanswered questions, i think older children and young people get used to the "because so" or they don't think about it, because that's just the way its always been for them. it's not really an issue for many. (not saying it isn't an issue at all, i'm just saying it's probably not the root of the problem.)

 

our modern generations are growing more and more together, as more people are able to communicate freely and travel with greater ease.. there is significantly less prejudice in the world overall (and yes, there will always be some people with it, i know..) but more people are being taught and are seeing that acceptance of other people, ways of life, religions, etc. is the way to go. to think otherwise is to build a wall around oneself, basically just to shut the whole of society, as it is now, out.

 

my point with that is that people are more accepting, and there are so many older christians preaching hate, repetition, and strict rules about their religion. they're the ones that shove their beliefs in people's faces, and are the ones that the _media_ clings to. <-- big point. the ones protesting with signs carrying messages of hate or kicking their children from their homes setting up "correction" camps for kids who might be gay, wiccan, etc. people see/hear the word christian and they immediately think crazy, cruel, people with their eyes glazed over and a bible in one hand and the other a closed fist, and associate anything with christianity with them. kids naturally, don't want to preach hate, right? if this is all they see, then really, there's no question as to why they leave their churches.

There is hope.....

[Abiyoyo]

Besides, Evolution does NOT deny First Cause, but is very much dependent on it. In fact, First Cause is a very good argument to life as being an effect and emerging from a universe in order. So, I'm not sure why First Cause deny evolution? Take Theistic Evolution as an example. It's the belief that God created the Universe, and used Evolution to create life and humans. Maybe for the sake of argument, we can accept a First Cause, and even a God, but then, what is the evidence for Created life instead of evolved?

 

If God didn't make human beings then option B for me would be an alien encounter. The complexity of the human species alone compared to any other specie is why I would have to make that decision. It's not really evolution that I don't believe, it's the whole chicken or the egg thing, and which came first.

 

Hard to imagine everything we can touch, smell, see, taste, came from anything other than a higher power in my mind. I have always thought that though, even before I became religious. Life is to overwhelming for me to believe otherwise. Call me shallow, I will just call myself human.

[Ouroboros]

If God didn't make human beings then option B for me would be an alien encounter. The complexity of the human species alone compared to any other specie is why I would have to make that decision. It's not really evolution that I don't believe, it's the whole chicken or the egg thing, and which came first.

The complexity of the human specie isn't extremely much more complex than some of the higher order animals.

 

And I think the whole chicken or egg problem is one of the reasons why many of the non-believers have a hard time accepting a non-created-God as the explanation for creation. Why one, but not the other? Magic box doesn't really answer anything, it just satisfy the curiosity, but never really give an answer you can build upon.

 

Hard to imagine everything we can touch, smell, see, taste, came from anything other than a higher power in my mind. I have always thought that though, even before I became religious. Life is to overwhelming for me to believe otherwise. Call me shallow, I will just call myself human.

It's very common, and that's why many (or few, I don't know any number) Ex-Christians turn out to become deists or something else, and not necessarily hard-core atheists.

[LNC]

So you're answering a question with a question? That's not a real answer (according to the Almighty Yourself).

 

You know what Evolution is. You're just stalling and trying to fish for another angle. You know what it is, and you know what you believe, but you're not going to answer it, because you know you don't have much to support your belief on. It's just fairy tale, and you know it.

 

Oh, so there is just one definition of evolution? That is surprising to me. Shall I go by my understanding of evolution and work from that basis to answer? Sorry, there I go again, answering with questions, but then again you didn't ask a question so I am not technically answering a question with a question.

 

Exactly what I thought. Very little about your explanation, or the religious explanation, but 99% about what is "wrong" with Evolution.

 

Christian Science method: pick up real science, critique the hell out of it, and leave as little left as possible, then to solve all the problems, just say "goddidit."

 

You're doing exactly what RO didn't want to. He wanted to know the Alternative Explanation by the religion, not the critique of Evolution. Right RO? Wasn't it? Did you look for Christians critique of Evolution, or did you look for Christian explanation and evidence of Creation or whatever they believe?

 

Did I say goddidit? Funny, I don't recall saying that. Are you in the habit of putting words into the mouths of other people? Again, look at the title, it is looking for an alternative explanation for evolution. I don't totally discount evolution, therefore, I don't technically fit into the category of the first question. What I am trying to do is distinguish where I think evolution fits the data and where I think it falls short. I think you just want me to say goddidit so that you can all beat up on me and you are frustrated that I don't give easy answers to complex questions.

 

No wonder you fail so miserable in logic. The first part of the sentence is just a layup, a clarification of the position of the person representing the counter-point. Basically this:

 

"If you don't believe in Evolution, then what is your theory?"

 

And Evolution is not that confusing or divided so you can really say "which one?" There are some fundamental principles, and you obviously don't believe in them, which means, you don't believe in Evolution to be true, which means, you have an alternative, which you don't want to share, because it's easier to criticized everyone else.

 

RO, you won't get any answer from LNC. He will just try to find whatever is wrong with I say, you say, anyone else says, or what science says, or philosophy says (when it doesn't agree with him), and even history say, or historians, or scholars. Because if they don't agree with him. Then they are obviously wrong. LNC got the 110% truth, direct from God. And everyone else is wrong. Simple.

 

So, you say that the first part is just a clarification, yet you criticize me for wanting a clarification of the clarification question, why is that? So, I have explained that I don't totally disbelieve evolution, just find that it doesn't fit with all the data and that is where I have filled in my explanation.

 

You say that evolution is not confusing yet there are differences between concepts like micro versus macro evolution, speciation, taxonomies, origin of life versus development of life, and many other issues; so, I wonder why you say that evolution is not confusing. It seems to be for the scientists and philosophers in the field. Now, which principles did I say that I don't believe in? When did I say that evolution was not true? Again, you are putting words in my mouth that I have not said myself. The rest of your statement is simply rhetorical flourish and ad hominem, let's stick to the discussion rather than diverting off into these rhetorical ditches.

 

Why don't you go back and actually read my answers rather than trying to make my argument for me. I am fully capable to making my own statements and arguments, thank you.

 

He's not even going to answer that question. But I can tell you what he will do: he will continue to dodge the question by criticizing everyone's views and opinions.

 

Again, go back and read my posts rather than making these baseless statements.

[LNC]

OK, I don't want to put words into your mouth, so tell me if I'm understanding you correctly.

 

It sounds as if you are advocating a "God of the gaps." That is to say, you accept the naturalistic explanation for the mundane, slow processes shown in the fossil record, but you also see things that, in your mind, cannot be the product of natural processes. So you infer that God must have intervened at those points. Among the events which you believe God to have initiated, you would include the origin of single-celled creatures; the Avalon and Cambrian explosion events; and the emergence of sentient (human) life.

 

Am I right so far?

 

No, you missed my argument. This is the opposite of God of the gaps, this is looking at the data and looking at the evolutionary theory and realizing that it will never be able to meet the tests of explanatory power and explanatory scope. I am not trying to fill in gaps with God, I am using what is known in philosophy as inference to the best explanation. The same method is used in science. One takes all of the available data and then applies the given theory, in this case, evolution, and then determines whether the data fits with the theory, and I believe that there are areas in which evolution fails. For example, evolution does not explain the origin of life as that falls outside the scope of the theory. Evolution does not explain repeated design in species that do not share common base ancestry (this is known as the convergence problem). Naturalistic evolution does not explain the existence of the mind and consciousness, and, having failed to make that explanation, evolution cannot explain the existence of objective moral values. These are just a few of the problems that I don't see naturalistic evolution ever being able to overcome, even given millions of additional years of study. Do you have some alternative way of explaining these problems?

[LNC]

Where did I say anything about a gap? And, where did you explain the sudden appearance of vast numbers of species in the Avalon and Cambrian explosions?

I did. Did you read it?

 

I read your reply and responded that there is no evidence of punctuated equilibrium. Even people like Paul Ehrlich admit that. It is a nice theory, but unless there is supporting arguments it becomes a "scientism in the gaps" theory.

[LNC]

The fossil record shows that this is exactly what happened.

 

Great, then you can show me where that evidence can be found. I will look forward to reading it.

 

Again, that's what the fossil record shows. That animal was a primordial single-celled animal living in the oceans.

 

And again, I will look forward to you pointing that fossil record out to me along with the pathway that leads up to the animals of today. You need to produce both, by the way. Fossils without a pathway are not evidence of evolution.

[LNC]

LNC,

 

Title of the topic is: "[G]ive Us Your Theory Christians..."

 

What is so hard to understand?

 

You still are attacking Evolution, while the topic is about Creationism and the defense of Creationism, and not defense of Evolution.

 

Again the topic is about Creationism as an alternative to Evolution, and your arguments for it as a Christian.

 

Are you really that slow???

 

 

Okay, I get it, here's the Christians scientific evidence of Creationism: Evolution is wrong.

 

Wow. I'm so impressed. ... *not*

 

What is hard to understand it why you left out half of the title. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Why don't you just write my posts and then argue against them? It seems that is what you are intent on doing anyway.

[Kuroikaze]

For example, evolution does not explain the origin of life as that falls outside the scope of the theory.

 

Uh.... are you serious? This is like saying that the theory of gravity is false because it does not tell us anything about the behavior of atoms. For that we need atomic theory. For the origins we turn to work in the field of abiogenesis, which if you paid attention to you would know has made major advancements in just the last few months.

 

Evolution does not explain repeated design in species that do not share common base ancestry (this is known as the convergence problem).

 

I am not sure this even requires much of an explanation. For one thing scientists do not claim to have a complete picture of the evolutionary tree, and according to the theory EVERYTHING is related if you go back far enough. Did you know that we share over 50% of our DNA with cabbage? It is not surprising that we find similarities even between relatively distant species.

 

Naturalistic evolution does not explain the existence of the mind and consciousness, and, having failed to make that explanation, evolution cannot explain the existence of objective moral values. These are just a few of the problems that I don't see naturalistic evolution ever being able to overcome, even given millions of additional years of study. Do you have some alternative way of explaining these problems?

 

Unfortunately for you, this is only a problem in your particular twisted mindset. One, these are philosophical problems not scientific ones so scientists are not generally interested in answering them. Two, many people disagree with your conclusions here, we have already explained in extreme detail why these claims are a load of dingos kidneys so I refuse to go into it again.

[Kuroikaze]

What is hard to understand it why you left out half of the title. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Why don't you just write my posts and then argue against them? It seems that is what you are intent on doing anyway.

 

you are missing the point, what you are engaging in is the typical bait and switch that always goes on from your side of the argument.

 

When asked for evidence for YOUR theory you present evidence that the competing theory (evolution) is false.

 

Even if your arguments were valid (and they usually aren't) you have failed to offer a competing theory at all. Your counterpoint to evolution is nothing more than "God did it." Which is not a scientific theory no matter how you slice it.

 

If you are going to claim that the TOE does not meet the standards of rigorous scientific inquiry then why not present a theory on the topic which you feel DOES meet those standards?

[LNC]

Hey.... I've got an idea. How about you answer the question that was asked instead of the one you wished had been asked. STOP TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION AND TELL US YOUR HYPOTHESIS. GIVE US YOUR EVIDENCES. Let's just take it from Day 1 and tell us where life came from.

 

I have told you already that based upon the data I believe that life is the product of an intelligent agent. Life contains information in the form of DNA and that information requires a source. I have already explained other reasons in other posts as to why I believe that life requires an intelligent agent. Do I believe that evolution is involved somewhere? Sure, we have speciation and adaptation that has occurred and evolution has certainly been a part of the process. Now, are you looking for a scientific explanation of how life began and developed to our current state? If so, I don't have all of the details since I don't believe that is completely in the realm of science to explain. Evolution cannot explain these things either since evolution only explains why certain characteristics survived via selection, but not how they came to be in the first place to be selected. It seems to me that evolution can only explain that due to random mutations certain features came to be and because of environmental factors those features and traits survived (i.e. were "selected"). However, evolution has no creative ability; it follows no teleological pathway; it is simply relying on chance mutations that "happen" to develop and the idea that due to the chance circumstances of environmental factors and other conditions those traits and features survive to the next and following generations. It is all about the entity being in the right place at the right time with the right features and characteristics to be able to eat, fight, flee and reproduce. However, evolution isn't a process per se, but a description of what is happening. "Evolution" doesn't produce anything, things just evolve because of chance mutations that then survive.

 

Yet, there are many problems that I have discussed that evolution doesn't answer. And, one big issue that has not yet been addressed is the problem of truth. You see, evolution doesn't care about truth. One doesn't have to know or believe truth to survive. One could survive believing complete falsehoods but still acting in such a way as to put their body in position to eat, fight, flee and reproduce. So, if evolution is true, truth is not something that we would necessarily be particularly adapted to knowing since it is ultimately not necessary for survival. IOW, this discussion would be meaningless and futile. Yet, here we are...

[Kuroikaze]

I am reading a book now by Paul Ehrlich and even he doesn't see much, if any evidence for punctuated equilibrium. It is an interesting idea in theory, but the actual evidence is quite thin and the problems are numerous. In fact, many believe that even PE does not account for the explosive appearances in both the Avalon and Cambrian events. So, I am not confident that PE is an adequate explanation of these events.

 

Uh...explosive appearance is a bit of a misnomer. Both of these periods lasted close to 100 million years.

[Ouroboros]

Oh, so there is just one definition of evolution? That is surprising to me. Shall I go by my understanding of evolution and work from that basis to answer? Sorry, there I go again, answering with questions, but then again you didn't ask a question so I am not technically answering a question with a question.

Why do you need to go from your understanding of evolution and work from that at all? Why not explain what your theory is? You keep on dodging it.

 

Did I say goddidit? Funny, I don't recall saying that.

Oh, I'm sorry. First Cause Jesus did it. Is that better?

 

Are you in the habit of putting words into the mouths of other people? Again, look at the title, it is looking for an alternative explanation for evolution. I don't totally discount evolution, therefore, I don't technically fit into the category of the first question.

Well, then GOOD! Then you don't have to give any explanation to your own theory, since you agree with whatever the way you consider evolution to be. But since, according to you, there are multiple and different evolutionary theories, you can explain which version you believe in... or not, since the question then doesn't apply to you!

 

What I am trying to do is distinguish where I think evolution fits the data and where I think it falls short. I think you just want me to say goddidit so that you can all beat up on me and you are frustrated that I don't give easy answers to complex questions.

Why do you want to find where evolution falls short? Is that the question? "Where does evolution fall short -- Christians give an answer!?" Is that the title?

 

Okay, so God didn't do it. You believe in Evolution. Good. Then you don't have to answer anything or even argue what is wrong with evolution... SINCE THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT!!!

 

So, you say that the first part is just a clarification, yet you criticize me for wanting a clarification of the clarification question, why is that? So, I have explained that I don't totally disbelieve evolution, just find that it doesn't fit with all the data and that is where I have filled in my explanation.

Then you don't have to answer the question in the topic, since it's about Creationism, not Evolution.

 

You say that evolution is not confusing yet there are differences between concepts like micro versus macro evolution, speciation, taxonomies, origin of life versus development of life, and many other issues; so, I wonder why you say that evolution is not confusing. It seems to be for the scientists and philosophers in the field. Now, which principles did I say that I don't believe in? When did I say that evolution was not true? Again, you are putting words in my mouth that I have not said myself. The rest of your statement is simply rhetorical flourish and ad hominem, let's stick to the discussion rather than diverting off into these rhetorical ditches.

Evolution is not what is in question in this thread. When will you get that into your thick skull?

 

Why don't you go back and actually read my answers rather than trying to make my argument for me. I am fully capable to making my own statements and arguments, thank you.

So far, the only argument you are doing is: this is wrong with evolution.

 

Then what? What theory DO you have?

 

Again, go back and read my posts rather than making these baseless statements.

I see 3 kinds of answers:

 

1) "What is wrong with evolution"

2) "I am answering the topic, because it is about evolution."

3) "I already answered the question"

 

And nothing else.

 

If you don't believe in Creationism, then you don't qualify fill in for the Christian/Creationists view. Do you? You have to believe in Creationism to argue why it is a theory, but since you don't believe in it, stop derailing the THREAD!!!

[Guest Davka]

No, you missed my argument. This is the opposite of God of the gaps, this is looking at the data and looking at the evolutionary theory and realizing that it will never be able to meet the tests of explanatory power and explanatory scope.

I can only surmise that you have not studied evolutionary theory sufficiently then, because it posits a very reasonable explanation for each of the questions you raise.

 

For example, evolution does not explain the origin of life as that falls outside the scope of the theory.

 

It would be absurd to expect any theory to deal with things that lie outside the scope of the theory. This goes for gravity as well.

 

 

Evolution does not explain repeated design in species that do not share common base ancestry (this is known as the convergence problem).

 

Actually, it explains this very well. In fact, it is one of the "proofs" for evolution. Evolution states that life will weed out the inefficient and unfit, leaving the most efficient life forms for each available ecological niche. Thus, the niche filled by animals that can eat insects from inside rotting logs (for example) is filled by animals that look very similar: long snouts, sticky tongues, powerful claws for tearing at bark. Yet these anteaters are unrelated. This is an example of ecological pressure causing the same efficient design to prosper regardless of the original genome.

 

Naturalistic evolution does not explain the existence of the mind and consciousness

 

Sure it does. The more intelligent animals have a survival advantage over others. As intelligence increases, self-awareness also increases. We have been able to confirm self-awareness in many animal species (apes, dolphins, elephants). Self-awareness is a logical step on the road to mind and consciousness.

 

and, having failed to make that explanation, evolution cannot explain the existence of objective moral values.

This is the purview of anthropology rather than evolutionary biology, but it is no great mystery. First of all, the assertion that there is such a thing as an "objective" moral value is pure speculation. Study of human society does not seem to support this. Secondly, the emergence of moral values is a function of tribal society. Without rules, even animal tribes cannot function.

 

These are just a few of the problems that I don't see naturalistic evolution ever being able to overcome, even given millions of additional years of study. Do you have some alternative way of explaining these problems?

Don't need one. Science does the job quite well, than you.

 

What I see is that you really have no alternative predictive model to offer. You simply state that you don't think evolution can answer all the questions, so it must be wrong. But an argument against evolution is NOT and argument for creation.

 

What's more, as far as I can tell your reservations regarding evolutionary theory are the result of insufficient education on your part. I suggest you seek out and read as much secular material on the subject as you can, so as to understand exactly what is being discussed here. I know some of it is dry as dust, and I don't claim to read much of that myself. But there are some great publications for the layman, such as Scientific American and Mew Scientist (my personal favorite). Why not get yourself a subscription to one or the other? At the very least, it will help you to argue from a more informed perspective.

[Ouroboros]

What is hard to understand it why you left out half of the title. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Why don't you just write my posts and then argue against them? It seems that is what you are intent on doing anyway.

It's easier for me to just delete your posts, or close this thread and start a new one with a title that fits you better and makes more sense to you. Since you still can't grasp what this topic is about.

[Guest Davka]

By the way, LNC, I find you to be quite intelligent and fairly entertaining. I'm sure we'd have a great time hashing this stuff out over beer and BBQ.

 

Assuming, of course, that you drink beer. If you don't then you're the spawn of satan and I want nothing more to do with you.

[Ouroboros]

I have told you already that based upon the data I believe that life is the product of an intelligent agent.

So what is that intelligent agent? The Pixie Queen? Qxzrlzmfzt? Bob? Ahura Mazda? Who? What? ... You said it's not God, so I'm trying to figure out what/who you are talking about as being the "intelligent agent." Is it a super-smart rat in the 11th dimension?

 

Anyway, how do you go about to prove that there is an intelligent agent behind Evolution? Irreducible Complexity? So far the IC arguments from the Creationists/ID camp have been refuted.

 

Life contains information in the form of DNA and that information requires a source.

Hmm... I've heard this argument before, and I have a hard time accepting it. It assumes that Nature reads, interpret, and understands pieces of codes and comprehend them as information. It's basically equating Nature with an intelligent being. In other words, for that allegory to make any sense, Nature must be alive to interpret the code. Is it?

 

I have already explained other reasons in other posts as to why I believe that life requires an intelligent agent. Do I believe that evolution is involved somewhere? Sure, we have speciation and adaptation that has occurred and evolution has certainly been a part of the process. Now, are you looking for a scientific explanation of how life began and developed to our current state? If so, I don't have all of the details since I don't believe that is completely in the realm of science to explain. Evolution cannot explain these things either since evolution only explains why certain characteristics survived via selection, but not how they came to be in the first place to be selected. It seems to me that evolution can only explain that due to random mutations certain features came to be and because of environmental factors those features and traits survived (i.e. were "selected").

Okay. Fair enough.

 

However, evolution has no creative ability; it follows no teleological pathway; it is simply relying on chance mutations that "happen" to develop and the idea that due to the chance circumstances of environmental factors and other conditions those traits and features survive to the next and following generations. It is all about the entity being in the right place at the right time with the right features and characteristics to be able to eat, fight, flee and reproduce. However, evolution isn't a process per se, but a description of what is happening. "Evolution" doesn't produce anything, things just evolve because of chance mutations that then survive.

Hmm... well, there are actual software solutions that use the exact same principles as the foundation for evolution. And these programs are used to find the most optimal solution for very complex problems. The method is random mutations, re-generations/reproduction, and selection, and it works better than regular methods using mathematical models. The first trials were done in the 80's, and they work really great. I don't remember the mathematical theory behind it, but there is a form of theory that explains how process systems can "find" automatically the most optimal path, purely by chance/trail/error.

 

Yet, there are many problems that I have discussed that evolution doesn't answer. And, one big issue that has not yet been addressed is the problem of truth. You see, evolution doesn't care about truth. One doesn't have to know or believe truth to survive. One could survive believing complete falsehoods but still acting in such a way as to put their body in position to eat, fight, flee and reproduce. So, if evolution is true, truth is not something that we would necessarily be particularly adapted to knowing since it is ultimately not necessary for survival. IOW, this discussion would be meaningless and futile. Yet, here we are...

Truth? No, why does evolution have to answer some philosophical question about truth? Are you going to demand that evolution also answer you what the next Lotto number will be?

 

You know, I think we should demand that Religion answers next Lotto number first, to see if it is that superior in predictive power.

 

This is just so stupid, you ARE sidetracking the topic.

[Ouroboros]

...

But there are some great publications for the layman, such as Scientific American and Mew Scientist (my personal favorite)

...

What a cat-astrophe! You sure the Mew Scientists talk our language?

[Guest Davka]

...

But there are some great publications for the layman, such as Scientific American and Mew Scientist (my personal favorite)

...

What a cat-astrophe! You sure the Mew Scientists talk our language?

Turkey.

 

{stuffed shirt} To correct the above typo, as so generously pointed out by Mr. Solo, I should like to interject at this point that I intended to recommend the British publication New Scientist. It is my hope that such egregious typos might be overlooked in future.

{/stuffed shirt}

 

Double turkey.

 

[Ouroboros]

{stuffed shirt} To correct the above typo, as so generously pointed out by Mr. Solo, I should like to interject at this point that I intended to recommend the British publication New Scientist. It is my hope that such egregious typos might be overlooked in future.

{/stuffed shirt}

We overlook nothing.

[Neon Genesis]

If you don't believe in Creationism, then you don't qualify fill in for the Christian/Creationists view. Do you? You have to believe in Creationism to argue why it is a theory, but since you don't believe in it, stop derailing the THREAD!!!

I wonder if LNC is one of those Christians who believe animals evolved but God created humans separately but for all he insists on us telling him what kind of evolution we're talking about, he refuses to tell us what he believes for some reason.

[Dagan]

If you don't believe in Creationism, then you don't qualify fill in for the Christian/Creationists view. Do you? You have to believe in Creationism to argue why it is a theory, but since you don't believe in it, stop derailing the THREAD!!!

I wonder if LNC is one of those Christians who believe animals evolved but God created humans separately but for all he insists on us telling him what kind of evolution we're talking about, he refuses to tell us what he believes for some reason.

 

Maybe he believes Adam and Eve were only the first creatures created with souls? That other creatures had evolved or been created (e.g. Neanderthals) but did not have souls? That the offspring of Adam and Eve went off to breed with Neanderthals (the "daughters of men") to carry on the Yahweh-inspired line of humanity? And other such silly nonsense which stretches ancient mythology to the breaking point to shoe-horn it into modern understandings of our origins?

 

Volume 14 Number 4 of "Skeptic" magazine has an article titled "The Garden of Eden: It’s Origins & Meaning." Great read, with pictures of ancient art relevant to the development of the myth. Basically, the story evolved out of Sumerian mythology, and writer Tim Callahan makes a convincing case for his premise.

[Neon Genesis]

But you'd think if LNC doesn't want people to put words into his mouth that he doesn't believe, he would tell us already what he believes instead of making us guess and getting pissy when we get it wrong.

[Ouroboros]

But you'd think if LNC doesn't want people to put words into his mouth that he doesn't believe, he would tell us already what he believes instead of making us guess and getting pissy when we get it wrong.

Exactly. That was in my mind too.

 

The only thing I've heard so far is that he believes in an "intelligent agent," which he identifies as the "First Cause," and surprisingly, it's not the same as God. Since he says "intelligent agent" and "First Cause" are the "creator", or in other words, did it, but it's wrong of me to say that he means, god did it (goddidit). So I can only conclude that he means to say that the first cause/intelligent agent is the creator, and it's not God. Very confusing. And instead of laying the cards on the table, he just rant about the errors in evolution, or what's wrong we me, and what I do wrong in my attacks against him, and that we are wrong, and everyone is wrong but him, and that he has told us already what he believes... which is my first part of this paragraph, and on, and on, it goes, circular, and never finding any answer. And why is that? There's a certain kind of personality type, a person who hates to be wrong, and can only see the world in black and white, and they are of course always right, while everyone else is always wrong, but when they come to situations where they have a lot of opposition, they can't just go out and say that, or explain what they believe, they have to undermine the established social framework first, but pointing to all the errors and problems in the group, before they can give "their answer" to the problem. And the reason is that they really don't have a better product, but just another product, and they first have to make everyone give up their current product so they can buy this "new one."

[Guest Davka]

The fossil record shows that this is exactly what happened.

 

Great, then you can show me where that evidence can be found. I will look forward to reading it.

 

Again, that's what the fossil record shows. That animal was a primordial single-celled animal living in the oceans.

 

And again, I will look forward to you pointing that fossil record out to me along with the pathway that leads up to the animals of today. You need to produce both, by the way. Fossils without a pathway are not evidence of evolution.

*sigh*

 

Just google "fossil record" and avoid the creationist sites if you want to read what science has to say. Fossils, pathway, so-called "missing links," it's all there.

 

For example, here, and here, and also here and here and even here.

 

And that's just from the first page of google results.