Idoubt

[sandiego4me]

 

 

I have taken the time to read “The Molecular Evidence for Evolution.”   And, yes, I read th entire article.

 

The premise of the article is that since there is only slight variation in the DNA of different species, they must have a common nucleus.  The article states that the differences and similarities in genetic sequences validate “descent with modification.” 

 

The article presumes that every species must be related to one another.  That is the only way to explain the similarities in DNA.  I respectfully disagree.   If I analyzed an office building in Manhattan and compared it to a concrete sidewalk in Los Angeles, it would not logically follow that they must be related since they are both made of concrete.  The fact that different species have “similar” DNA does not mean they share a common ancestor.  For example, the amino acids shared between humans and apes is very similar, an amino acid difference of 1 between the species.  However, humans and the Molusc sea slug have a difference of 123 amino acids.  

 

Moreover, if “survival of the fittest” is true, then why would we shed our powerful ape bodies for these nimble human bodies?  What is safer, living as an ape with a human brain, or living as a human with a human brain.   It makes no sense.

 

Also, the author stated, “The fact is we have very little real, tangible evidence supporting the prevailing hypothesis of how life originated.”  That is an INCREDIBLY amazing statement.  You can’t get to evolution without explaining its genesis.   That's like explaining that a skyscraper came into being because concrete, wood, and materials were shaped to form it. But where did the concrete, wood, and materials came from?   

 

My habit is to break things down into plain English.   In plain English, this article says, “Things look very similar, therefore they must have evolved from a common source.”  Noticeably absent is any proof of this other than speculation.  Earlier, my comment about the Cambrian Explosion was laughed off.  However, it’s no laughing matter to evolutionists.  Since all complex living species showed up in the fossil record at roughly the same time, that directly proves that these species did not evolve from one another.   This is common sense, even if they have similar DNA.  All that it shows is that whoever made them, used similar materials when they were made. 

[TrueFreedom]

Wanderinstar, I was unable to locate Moss's article. When I Google it, I get other people who have quoted him, but I can't find his article.   Do you have a link to it? I'd appreciate it.  

I located it and linked to it earlier:  http://faculty.virgi...ceEvolution.pdf

 

My habit is to break things down into plain English.   In plain English, this article says, “Things look very similar, therefore they must have evolved from a common source.”  Noticeably absent is any proof of this other than speculation.  Earlier, my comment about the Cambrian Explosion was laughed off.  However, it’s no laughing matter to evolutionists.  Since all complex living species showed up in the fossil record at roughly the same time, that directly proves that these species did not evolve from one another.   This is common sense, even if they have similar DNA.  All that it shows is that whoever made them, used similar materials when they were made. 

 

 

There's a difference between breaking things down to plain English and building a strawman.  Either you didn't understand what you read or you are being disingenuous.  Evolution by means of natural selection is a well-established scientific fact.  Read!

[VacuumFlux]

Moreover, if “survival of the fittest” is true, then why would we shed our powerful ape bodies for these nimble human bodies?  What is safer, living as an ape with a human brain, or living as a human with a human brain.   It makes no sense.

 

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is problematic and has never described evolution very accurately. That phrase makes it sound like the biggest and the strongest survive, but really, that's not true. All that's true is that organisms that produce viable offspring that survive to adulthood are more likely to have grandkids and other descendants than those that don't. It's not about "fittest" in the sense of healthiest or strongest or any of that; all that matters is reproductive fitness. If you're weak but good at hiding, then die in childbirth, and the child born goes on to have kids of their own, you were reproductively fit.

 

The other problem with that phrase, and your idea of evolution, is that evolution is about making things better and better. It's not. It's about good enough to survive, and better at surviving than other organisms that you're competing with for resources. Fitness is very, very location specific. An organism that's highly adapted to one environement may die in another.

 

As for the ape to human thing, we have a few advantages: large tribes, big brains, opposable thumbs, endurance running. We're pitiful when unarmed and alone, but our ancestors started making and using tools quite a while ago. Being thin and low on fur makes it easier for us to shed heat, so we can out-marathon lots of animals that evolved to be fast sprinters (they evolved that way because a lot of their predators hunt by sneaking up and lungings, so the prey that could react quickly and run away were the ones that survived long enough to breed). I've also heard the suggestion that our big brains were related our ancestors learning to control fire - with fire, we had access to more calories from food, so we had enough energy to support our giant, resource-hungry brains. We're marathon-running tool users, and we live large packs. So yeah, one human vs one wolf, the wolf wins. But a pack of wolves vs an entire tribe of armed humans?

[florduh]

Moreover, if “survival of the fittest” is true, then why would we shed our powerful ape bodies for these nimble human bodies?  What is safer, living as an ape with a human brain, or living as a human with a human brain.   It makes no sense.

 

That represents a misunderstanding at a very basic level. Evolution has no goals. there isn't a game plan. The human model worked because brains were able to trump brawn. The biggest brain is the fittest in this case. The proof is that we're here and apes are in our zoos, not the other way around.

[mymistake]

 When I scrutinized evolution, I realized it was impossible.   

 

No you didn't.

[mymistake]

 

Back to evolution.  The Cambrian Explosion.    Pretty much killed evolution.   In the fossil record, the vast entirety of every living thing suddenly showed up all at once in the fossil record.  In other words, there was no progressive fossil evidence leading up to it.  Suddenly, everything in full living form was in the fossil record.  That runs completely counter to what evolution teaches, namely, that creatures changed over time long periods of time.  Rather, it fits hand-in-hand with the Genesis account of all things being created over a short period of time.   

 

Another strike against evolution:  If it takes billions of years for it to take place, then how did it recover after the dinosaur event when the entire earth was essentially wiped out?  If something so massive killed off the dinosaurs, then every thing else would have been killed too.   Evolution would have had to start over.  And wo would have told it to start over if it was doing this on its own?

 

 

So you don't understand the first thing about evolution.  I'm guessing you are not willing to learn because your faith hinges on evolution must be false.  What would you do if you learn evolution was fact?

 

Oh and regarding the things you mention above.  When there is an explosion of new species that means the conditions changed.  If the earth's environment suddenly changes then old species die out and the survivors diversify quickly because only fringe organisms have what it takes.  The Cambrian Explosion is considered consistent with and confirming evolution by all scientists worth their salt.  The KY boundary didn't kill off everything.  However it did kill off everything big.  Tiny land animals survived.  And that is how mammals came to rule the world.  Nobody tells evolution to do anything.  It's a natural process.  Nobody tells gravity to keep up the good work.  They just keep doing what they do because that is their nature.

[mymistake]

 

 

You can’t get to evolution without explaining its genesis.   That's like explaining that a skyscraper came into being because concrete, wood, and materials were shaped to form it. But where did the concrete, wood, and materials came from?   

 

My habit is to break things down into plain English.   In plain English, this article says, “Things look very similar, therefore they must have evolved from a common source.”  Noticeably absent is any proof of this other than speculation.  Earlier, my comment about the Cambrian Explosion was laughed off.  However, it’s no laughing matter to evolutionists.  Since all complex living species showed up in the fossil record at roughly the same time, that directly proves that these species did not evolve from one another.   This is common sense, even if they have similar DNA.  All that it shows is that whoever made them, used similar materials when they were made. 

 

 

Of course we can get to evolution without it's cause.  We know what happened after life began.  How life began is itself still unknown.  Perhaps we will figure that out later.  Evolutionary science is not speculation.  The evidence is very strong and comes from all over.  Species do not evolve from each other.  You demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of the basics of evolution.  Evolution is like a tree.  You don't see a twig on one side of the tree become a twig on the other side of the tree.  The tree diversifies as it grows.  The trunk separates into major branches.  The major branches separate into minor branches.  Minor branches separate into sticks that separate into twigs.  Life diversified the same way - always diversifying from common ancestors.

[sandiego4me]

Evolution's response to the Cambrian Explosion was Punctuated Equilibrium.   Punctuated Equilibrium is the polar opposite of Evolution's long, slow process of creatures evolving.  It was a weak attempt to explain away the unexplainable.   Seriously.  If evolution was true, then the fossil record would support it.  It does not. 

[mymistake]

Evolution's response to the Cambrian Explosion was Punctuated Equilibrium.   Punctuated Equilibrium is the polar opposite of Evolution's long, slow process of creatures evolving.  It was a weak attempt to explain away the unexplainable.   Seriously.  If evolution was true, then the fossil record would support it.  It does not. 

 

 

Is it 1975?  You do realize this "rapid" period was millions of years in length.  Just to keep in in focus in 40 million years our ancestors went from being rodents to unleashing fusion weapons, visiting the moon and building the internet.  The Cambrian Explosion is only unexplainable to those who's religious beliefs require that evolution be false.

[florduh]

Moved to Lion's Den.

[sandiego4me]

Can anyone give me  simple summary of the three most powerful pieces of evidence that support evolution and where I can find a good article on each topic?  Some of you have already referenced articles and I thank you.  I want to analyze the core of evolution's top three claims and the most famous article discussing each.  I will read them.   

[mymistake]

Can anyone give me  simple summary of the three most powerful pieces of evidence that support evolution and where I can find a good article on each topic?  Some of you have already referenced articles and I thank you.  I want to analyze the core of evolution's top three claims and the most famous article discussing each.  I will read them.   

 

Why just three?  Pick up a real text book an learn the real science.  There are millions of pieces of evidence for evolution.  It could fill many libraries.  It's all inner connected.

 

Are you going to deny all of that so that you can believe your god?

[wanderinstar]

 

 

 

I have taken the time to read “The Molecular Evidence for Evolution.”   And, yes, I read th entire article.

 

The premise of the article is that since there is only slight variation in the DNA of different species, they must have a common nucleus.  The article states that the differences and similarities in genetic sequences validate “descent with modification.” 

 

The article presumes that every species must be related to one another.  That is the only way to explain the similarities in DNA.  I respectfully disagree.   If I analyzed an office building in Manhattan and compared it to a concrete sidewalk in Los Angeles, it would not logically follow that they must be related since they are both made of concrete.  The fact that different species have “similar” DNA does not mean they share a common ancestor.  For example, the amino acids shared between humans and apes is very similar, an amino acid difference of 1 between the species.  However, humans and the Molusc sea slug have a difference of 123 amino acids.  

 

Moreover, if “survival of the fittest” is true, then why would we shed our powerful ape bodies for these nimble human bodies?  What is safer, living as an ape with a human brain, or living as a human with a human brain.   It makes no sense.

 

Also, the author stated, “The fact is we have very little real, tangible evidence supporting the prevailing hypothesis of how life originated.”  That is an INCREDIBLY amazing statement.  You can’t get to evolution without explaining its genesis.   That's like explaining that a skyscraper came into being because concrete, wood, and materials were shaped to form it. But where did the concrete, wood, and materials came from?   

 

My habit is to break things down into plain English.   In plain English, this article says, “Things look very similar, therefore they must have evolved from a common source.”  Noticeably absent is any proof of this other than speculation.  Earlier, my comment about the Cambrian Explosion was laughed off.  However, it’s no laughing matter to evolutionists.  Since all complex living species showed up in the fossil record at roughly the same time, that directly proves that these species did not evolve from one another.   This is common sense, even if they have similar DNA.  All that it shows is that whoever made them, used similar materials when they were made. 

 

 

 

 

 

I have taken the time to read “The Molecular Evidence for Evolution.”   And, yes, I read th entire article.

 

The premise of the article is that since there is only slight variation in the DNA of different species, they must have a common nucleus.  The article states that the differences and similarities in genetic sequences validate “descent with modification.” 

 

The article presumes that every species must be related to one another.  That is the only way to explain the similarities in DNA.  I respectfully disagree.   If I analyzed an office building in Manhattan and compared it to a concrete sidewalk in Los Angeles, it would not logically follow that they must be related since they are both made of concrete.  The fact that different species have “similar” DNA does not mean they share a common ancestor.  For example, the amino acids shared between humans and apes is very similar, an amino acid difference of 1 between the species.  However, humans and the Molusc sea slug have a difference of 123 amino acids.  

 

Moreover, if “survival of the fittest” is true, then why would we shed our powerful ape bodies for these nimble human bodies?  What is safer, living as an ape with a human brain, or living as a human with a human brain.   It makes no sense.

 

Also, the author stated, “The fact is we have very little real, tangible evidence supporting the prevailing hypothesis of how life originated.”  That is an INCREDIBLY amazing statement.  You can’t get to evolution without explaining its genesis.   That's like explaining that a skyscraper came into being because concrete, wood, and materials were shaped to form it. But where did the concrete, wood, and materials came from?   

 

My habit is to break things down into plain English.   In plain English, this article says, “Things look very similar, therefore they must have evolved from a common source.”  Noticeably absent is any proof of this other than speculation.  Earlier, my comment about the Cambrian Explosion was laughed off.  However, it’s no laughing matter to evolutionists.  Since all complex living species showed up in the fossil record at roughly the same time, that directly proves that these species did not evolve from one another.   This is common sense, even if they have similar DNA.  All that it shows is that whoever made them, used similar materials when they were made. 

 

 

It seems you read this article through your 'evolution is false' glasses. As I quoted Moss, the similarities in DNA is only the beginning of the evidence; it is the exact genes that are similar that is the key. Just as predicted by evolution the genes that are most similar are in the lifeforms that are closest on the evolutionary tree. You will probably argue that we set up the tree due to these similarities but it is much more complex than that. They can now trace DNA from extinct life forms, through many mutations to living lifeforms. It is the SEQUENCE that provides the evidence for evolution. Did you know all living organisms have a thing called the mitochondria in every cell in their body? This is the energy powerhouse that uses proton streams to generate energy (using the difference in charge). Scientists can go back several billions of years by studying the fossil record to see the structure of the mitochondria in some of the easliest cells on earth and compare them to todays cells. They are not the same. When you line up the mitochondria from the earliest to the living examples the path of evolution can be clearly seen, and each living organism will have at least a slightly different (often greatly) trail of ancestors. 

 

If there was evidence that all parts of a cell were created specific to function, rather than slowly transformed over millions of years of evolution be assured that scientists would notice. Most scientists only want to discover truth, rather than explain their own ideology. There is no way they are all secretly hiding evidence for creation and fudging evidence for evolution. There is no conspiracy. Any scientist who disproved evolution ( and it could be fairly simple to do that if you had the credentials and access to materials) would get a nobel prize (once the evidence had been confirmed by other scientists). They would go down in history next to the likes of Einstein, Newton and Darwin. 

 

Brian Cox (professor of physics and very cool guy) has just released a documentary series called 'The Wonders of Life'. Full versions are available on BBC and ABC (Australian) websites as they are being broadcast now. Not sure about the USA. This documentary is the best I have ever seen on explaining what science knows about the appearance of life and development of life on our planet. And they know quite a bit now. Have a look if you can, it is truly amazing and a great start to then being able to understand complex scientific papers on biology (even as a university student it was tough going grasping some of the top notch papers). 

 

The Cambrian Explosion did used to be (90's or earlier) a tricky situation for paleontologists but scientists love a good challenge and they have discovered a great deal about it since. As explained above, it was only a relatively rapid burst of new lifeforms. It was not like waking up tomorrow to find a billion new species of life on the planet, that would be creation, and there is zero evidence that ever occurred. Evolution is known (and shown in labs with microorganisms) to occur more rapidly when 'pressures' are applied and opportunity is available, like when hitting the planet with a meteorite or similar catastrophe. There are fossils under the Cambrian layer too, you know. And many organisms appear on both sides of the layer, such as the small mammals who are our ancestors. Creation does not explain these facts. Seriously, do yourself a favor and read modern science books (published by highly respected biologists) that explain in detail the theory of evolution. This conversation will be fruitless to you if you don't open up to an unbiased perspective on the facts at hand.

 

You are not going to convince anyone here of creation. This is not because we blindly hold to our beliefs, that is what religious people do and we all rejected that for good, sound reasons. Remember, most of us used to be in your place, defending our god and creation against the 'lies' of evolution. Once we opened our minds and read into the science surrounding evolution it was amazing how quickly we rejected creationism. This wasn't easy emotionally for me but once the facts presented themselves (like the fact that the earth is round, not flat) I had little choice but to follow them as living a lie is not an option to me.

[bornagainathiest]

Sandiego4me,

 

Please go here... http://www.christianforums.com/f426/ ...and ask the likes of Gluadys, Papias, Willtor, Shernren, the Assyrian, Progmonk, Mallon and Lucaspa to do two things for you.

 

1.

Explain how evolution works. (Lucaspa is a biochemist, so he knows his stuff!)

 

2.

Explain how and why they know and love Jesus Christ as their savior and lord, yet also accept that evolution is a scientific and historical fact.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

Einstein's Theory of Relativity proved the the universe was not infinite.  

 

How?  Citation, please.

 

Hubbell's discovery of an expanding universe showed that there was a starting point .

 

Not entirely correct.

Cosmologists infer that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago.  That's an inference made by running the expansion of the universe backwards to it's inferred (but unobserved and unproven) starting point. An inference is not the same as showing something to be the case.

 

The Anthropic Principle shows that the universe is calibrated to ridiculously precise levels, by which if variants had been slightly off, the entire universe would collapse.

 

Not if we inhabit a Multiverse, which is compatible with the Planck satellite data, published in March.

 

Authentic evolutionists know this stuff isn’t true.  In a quote from the forward of the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin’s The Origin of Species, whose forward was written in 1959 by famous British evolutionary anthropologist, Sir Arthur Keith.  He admits: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” 

 

The 1950's?

 

George Wald, prominent evolutionist, Harvard University biochemist, and Nobel Laureate, wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation.” (The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954.).

 

1954?

 

Wald, likewise, candidly admitted that his faith in evolution was a grope in the dark.  Wald said, “Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ( The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954).   

 

Stuck in the 50's are we?

 

Fred Hoyle, British astrophysicist and avowed atheist, said, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."  Hoyle estimates the probability for chance, random arrangement of amino acids for all of life’s 2,000 enzymes is 10-40,000.  Mathematical zero is 10-50, and that any value smaller than the mathematical zero is relegated by mathematicians to the realm of “never happening.” (See Those Typing Monkeys Don’t Prove Evolution, by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed;  www.unmaskingevolution.com).

 

Fred Hoyle is also one of the originators of the Steady State theory of Cosmology...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory ...which has long been discredited by overwhelming evidence in support of Big Bang + Inflation cosmological models.  Yet, a little digging shows that... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle ...never could accept that our universe  (appears to have) originated 13.8 billion years and he consistently rejected the Big Bang model until his dying day.  Not exactly a glowing recommendation of an unbiased scientist with an open mind, I'd say.

 

If you believe in evolution, I’m curious to see what you perceive to be evidence.   Most people say “there are lots of scientific papers” or “floral and fauna prove it” or various other things.  These are just generic ways of saying you aren’t sure what you believe.   I want someone to honestly give me three known facts that prove evolution.  Please, don’t get angry and start cursing against God.  I just want to see if anybody has any proof? 

 

Believe in evolution?

 

My friend, evolution is not a religion or faith to be "believed in", like Christianity or Islam.  It is a well-supported, bona fide scientific model.  But please don't take my word for that!

 

Nope.  Instead, why don't you hop on over to the Theistic Evolutionists at Christianforums and ask them?  They have no problem understanding how evolution works and they also have no problem accepting Evolution and Christianity.  Also, they won't get angry with you and start cussin' against God, now will they?

 

As Gamecock said, "There is no third option?"

 

Sandiego4me wrote...

I am not here to debate.  We both know that it's a waste when the sides debate.  I am an unusual Christian who doesn't like church, has many doubts, and wants to explore everything.   My ultimate conclusion came down to this:  either God (whatever his name may be) made everything or evolution did.  When I scrutinized evolution, I realized it was impossible.   By default, God is the only option.  There could be no third option.    That is the long and the short of it.  

 

Sorry, but Gamecock is right, you're presenting a false dichotomy here.

 

I suggest you back up and let your Christian brethren tell you all about that third option.  It's called Theistic Evolution.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[BrotherJosh]

sandiego4me, just out of curiosity you seem to hold to a belief that Bible-God created almost all creatures during the Cambrian period, correct? So from 541-485 million years ago "the vast entirety of every living thing suddenly showed up all at once in the fossil record", right? Then from the Cambrian we move to the Ordovician through to the end of Paleozoic and into the Mesozoic and eventually into Cenozoic. Now, the creatures God created during the Cambrian, did they remain static and unchanging? By this I mean, was God in a constant state of creation and extinction over each period? So He created creatures like the Marrella Splendens in the Cambrian and then creatures such as the Triceratops in the Jurassic and eventually hominids in the Neogene period? 

 

I'm simply curious because you stated earlier that, "it fits hand-in-hand with the Genesis account of all things being created over a short period of time." Now, by all things being created over a short period of time do you mean that everything (life) was created 540 million years ago (Cambrian) all at once, or over hundreds of millions of years? And during the Cambrian was everything literally created all at once 540 million years ago at 12:05 PM on a Thursday, or over the 56 million years of that period? I'm confused because you did say, "all at once". I'm also confused because there happens to be a Precambrian period wherein there was an abundance of life, as well. And millions of years separate the Precambrian and the Cambrian Explosion. I'm not sure how, "all at once" factors in here, unless you mean millions and millions of years are how you define all at once? And when I look above and you say, "the vast entirety of every living thing suddenly showed up" in reference to the Cambrian Explosion are you saying that the abundant life in the Precambrian wasn't there? 

 

I'm also confused because you stated, "The Cambrian Explosion. Pretty much killed evolution. In the fossil record, the vast entirety of every living thing suddenly showed up all at once in the fossil record. In other words, there was no progressive fossil evidence leading up to it.  Suddenly, everything in full living form was in the fossil record." Maybe you can help me understand how the Cambrian Explosion which dates to 542 million years ago is predated by the Lantian Formation which dates to 580 millions years ago. I'm curious how fossils can be found before the time you say fossils, "suddenly showed up"?

 

 

In the quote above you also said "hand-in hand with the Genesis account". From Genesis 1:1-31 can you tell me the dates of when each creature was created? It only seems to mention birds, creatures of the sea and land animals being created in a very broad stroke. Unfortunately, I can't pin down when exactly the Cambrian was! Maybe you can find it. Am I perhaps reading the wrong version? I don't want to look it up in a science book, because I thought you said it goes hand in hand with the Genesis account? And if I follow the idiom, "hand in hand" wouldn't that suggest I can find this information somewhere in Genesis? 

 

So as we move down the periods we eventually arrive at...Adam and Eve? I don't even know what Adam and Eve looked like! Did they look like modern humans or perhaps like Homo Habilis one of the first human ancestors to use stone tools?  When were they created exactly? Was it 5 million years ago when our ancestors diverged from chimpanzees? Or maybe 200,000 years ago when we achieved a familiar anatomical appearance such as we see today? Or was it 50,000 years ago when we achieved behavioral consistency that gave rise to complex thought? I tried looking it up in Genesis but it only says at the end of the sixth day. When was the sixth day? Can you help in finding out when the sixth day was?

 

I ask these questions because maybe it would be best if you would put forth what specifically God was up to, and when. 

[Ravenstar]

Brother Josh... nice!

 

Why oh why do the christians come to us so completely uneducated about basic scientific concepts? Evolution is not even a question anymore... it's fact. It happened.. is happening, and is how our marvelous medical technology can do genetic therapy and many other wonderful things... forget all the other sciences which are based and/or support evolution. Geology, Biology, Biochemistry, Botany, Zoology... Paleontology...etc..etc..etc..

 

Abiogenesis does not yet have a solid answer, but there are a lot of really good hypotheses, and evidence that it is quite likely more than possible for life to come from organic chemistry. Organic molecules and amino acids have been found in/on space rocks and such.. so it seems to be rather common in the universe, or at least our solar system. BUT.. abiogenesis is not evolution.

 

The Big Bang Theory is not evolution either, it's Cosmology. It's our best theory so far, but not the only one.. physics and quantum physics have some interesting ideas and discoveries about the nature of reality and the universe. We are really just beginning to grasp the universe and it's wonders..exciting!

 

It's not magic though... and that's the great thing about science - it doesn't have to be right, right now, forever. It's a process.. and it's stringent in its requirements, and it's very strength is that it progresses and self-corrects with new information, and the imagination and hard work of scientists. It can say: we don't know.. let's find out! It can say: we were wrong.. this is a more accurate description. It's very strength is it's humility in the face of truth.

 

It cured Polio and Smallpox.

 

I won't even go into History, and the average christian's lack of comprehension of that and how it rips the bible to shreds, or the internal inconsistencies, etc...etc...

 

We aren't EX-christians because we are sin-crazed malcontents... we are exes because we followed the truth, we valued truth before comfort.

 

just sayin'

[ExCBooster]

Just to play fair, and give the background, here's a nice online explanation from UCMP Berkeley.

 

Also, I think part of the problem here is that it's hard to get a sense of scale. An "instant" in the geologic sense, as in the Cambrian explosion, is still millions of years long. Even with the problem of adjusting to the massive amounts of time involved for all of life's history to date, the evidence for evolution is abundant. Evolution does not just deal in dusty dead bones, it's happening all around us, all the time. Things that breed very fast can evolve very quickly. Like bacteria. That's exactly why there are some diseases that threaten to evolve defences against drugs that we use to kill them.

 

As mentioned above, the bar for "fitness" is set quite low: survive long enough to replicate. Ever choke on anything? That's because, for a mammal like you, the air hole and the food hole is the same hole. Not quite enough of us choke to death before breeding to exert any pressure on our genome. A creator that favours humanity would "fix" this in snakes (the tube framed by the paperclip is the snake's glottis, leading straight to the trachea), but not in his ideal creation in his own image? What about parasites? The guinea worm? Diseases? Evolution aside for a moment, I don't understand how anyone can look at the natural world, and imagine a benevolent creator. Given the guinea worm, EVIL or non-existent are the only two options for a creator. Yet, humanity is in the process of doing what God would not - either out of malice or not being real. There's so many things with no way of life but to tunnel through the living flesh of their hosts, or lay their eggs in the babies of their victims, eat each other in the womb, kill babies that aren't theirs... you get the idea. Any creator, realistically, would be quite a lot more H. P. Lovecraft than C. S. Lewis.

[JamesG]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY

 

this is a very simplified version of evolution that really helped explain it for me.

[florduh]

I don't get why we are so often expected to supply a high school science education to the Christians who come here.

[mymistake]

I don't get why we are so often expected to supply a high school science education to the Christians who come here.

 

Because millions of Christians attend Christian High School where real science is shunned and millions more skip school altogether to be given amateur education at home by a parent.

[♦ ficino ♦]

As mentioned above, the bar for "fitness" is set quite low: survive long enough to replicate. Ever choke on anything? That's because, for a mammal like you, the air hole and the food hole is the same hole. Not quite enough of us choke to death before breeding to exert any pressure on our genome. A creator that favours humanity would "fix" this in snakes (the tube framed by the paperclip is the snake's glottis, leading straight to the trachea), but not in his ideal creation in his own image? What about parasites? The guinea worm? Diseases? Evolution aside for a moment, I don't understand how anyone can look at the natural world, and imagine a benevolent creator. Given the guinea worm, EVIL or non-existent are the only two options for a creator. Yet, humanity is in the process of doing what God would not - either out of malice or not being real. There's so many things with no way of life but to tunnel through the living flesh of their hosts, or lay their eggs in the babies of their victims, eat each other in the womb, kill babies that aren't theirs... you get the idea. Any creator, realistically, would be quite a lot more H. P. Lovecraft than C. S. Lewis.

Can't they just say stuff like this happened as a result of the Fall?

[TrueFreedom]

 

I don't get why we are so often expected to supply a high school science education to the Christians who come here.

 

Because millions of Christians attend Christian High School where real science is shunned and millions more skip school altogether to be given amateur education at home by a parent.

 

I attended public school.  We never really studied evolution.  I didn't believe it until I studied it as an adult in my 30s.

[JamesG]

I went to a private Christian high school(because that's all that was available in my area  not because we were rich). we touched on evolution and Creationism go figure which one I grew up believing.

[midniterider]

If anybody wants to get a copy of the book and don't want to pay (I don't entirely blame you), let me know and I'll send you an electronic coupon that can help you get it either free or super cheap. 

 

I am not here to debate.  We both know that it's a waste when the sides debate.  I am an unusual Christian who doesn't like church, has many doubts, and wants to explore everything.   My ultimate conclusion came down to this:  either God (whatever his name may be) made everything or evolution did.  When I scrutinized evolution, I realized it was impossible.   By default, God is the only option.  There could be no third option.    That is the long and the short of it.  

 

My conclusion was that it was either evolution or faeries. I realized that, by default it must be faeries since evolution was obviously without merit. :-)