All aboard the atheist bus?

It seems perfectly obvious that biohazard is making a schoolboy error.
Here's my final attempt to get mr biohazyvagueness to understand what evolution means:

http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/WhatIsEvolution.html
http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

Bub - evolution is a theory overwhelmingly supported by facts. Try reading some proper science books on scientific method and philosophy.

 

Oh well, I tried.

 

Terms mean different things in the popular conception compared with the rigorous scientific meaning bub - popular science books usually mish mash both together. Many scientists are also unaware - ad it isn't necessary for the process of doing science - which is why I consider the history and philosophy of science essential on any science degree course.

 

Wriggling on the hook.

 

Question and some explanations.

Hi James

I actually would like you to explain the process by which you understand the evolutionary process to occur. Please use as much as possible terms that non-scientists can understand. I am genuinely interested.

I also would like to offer an explanation of the passage you wrote that I have quoted. I am sure John Mcdonald would be hurt that you don't think he is a scientist or maybe it was Ken Ham, who's area is Palaeontology.

Those Christians who believe that the Bible is the word of God(Yahweh) and is therefore without error. Have an understanding that because Jesus(the Son of God, who is also without error or fault-Perfect) quoted from Genesis as if from a point of view of actual History. This understanding includes the fact that Jesus created the universe and the Earth.If he did so as claimed within the literal 6 Days 1 for rest, then to believe that Evolution is the way it happened then that would make Jesus a liar. If Jesus is a liar, then he cannot be perfect and spotless and become the Sin offering for the whole world present (HIS) and Future (from then on. The past is dealt with under a different criteria). The Lamb that the High priest sacrificed for the sins of the people (Jews of ancient Israel), was a perfect animal( by their understanding, it was not but God allowed for this, which is why this process was yearly and not once off). Only Jesus the second Perfect Adam/Lamb of God could die (sacrifice himself) to offer a once and for all Sin offering. If Jesus was a liar, this could not happen, because telling lies is a Sin and a sinful/non -Perfect being could not be the sacrifice that would fulfill the redemptive plan.

Sorry about the long explanation but it seemed to me that perhaps you did not have an understanding of this. The acceptance of Evolution negates the whole Redemptive plan. It succeeds or fails on this fact Jesus was without any Sin, The Son of God, and born of a virgin or he told lies( not just that he created the world etc but all his other claims as to who he is and promises) and was sinful like the rest of us. If this is correct then all Christianity dies too.

The acceptance of Evolution precludes New Testament Christianity( as represented in the New Testament and not anything that man has added or taken away from it over the last 1979 years ). You cannot be a New Testament Christian and accept Evolution as an explanation for creation. Possibly other faiths/religions, can.

I should also like to add that a few pages back TONY talked about New Testament scripture being written a long time after Jesus died, in fact passed on orally. This is not true. The very earliest full and partial Greek texts(codex) date very closely to the few years that followed the life of Jesus. It is true that full texts date later and only partial texts date closer. However this does not mean they were not written early on, just because examples have yet to be found. The differences mentioned (or errors, by some understanding) in the New Testament only show the differences you get when several authors are focusing on different events or are focusing on different aspects of Jesus life and death. There are IMHO and many orthodox bible scholars no contradictions in the accounts. The slightly different views only give a complete picture. You can get a complete gospel which takes the elements and puts them together, the degree of parity to each account is startling, with only a small number of events mentioned in one Gospel and not another. Despite any small textural differences that have crept in over thousands of years there are no significant(in regard to Salvation issues and main theology) problems. Lets face it they did not have photo copiers or the benefit of the printing press and unfortunately with the death of the church in Jerusalem and the destruction of Israel by the Romans, the rigid and methodical way the Jewish scribes copy text was lost to Christianity. Monks were good but not quite as good as the Jewish scribes. No differences exist in the Old Testament books at all. The oldest portion of Old Testament writings was found in a excavation under the temple ruins, it was the Aaronic Blessing it was word for word the same as latter copies of the blessing. The same is true for the Old Testament Texts found among the Dead Sea scrolls. Jewish scribes don't destroy any mistakes in the text. They don't correct, they bin the whole thing. Very time consuming and expensive, even today.What was it like back then, in terms of cost ? However despite that loss and the anti-semitic attitudes that crept into the Christian Church the Bible( old and New)has the most proof of its history ( of any ancient book), as well as the largest quantity of early copies. Despite the best efforts of many to destroy it, it has survived intact.

Again I offer all this to clarify, not to provoke.

Regards D Louth 77

 

In broad terms, an organism's genetic material (DNA in our case) can be altered (genetic mutation) either by outside influences (such as radiation, chemical damage or viral infection) or during the copying process (transcription error). These mutations occur at random.

The consequences of genetic mutation to the offspring may be:

1) No effect
2) Phenotypic change, i.e. the offspring is slightly different from the parent in some way. This could be a "favourable" change, in terms of survival & reproductive success, or an "unfavourable" one.

At this point, creationists often jump up and down saying "You think we evolved due to random chance? Are you crazy?"

No. What is emphatically not random about Evolution is Natural Selection, which is the environmental pressure on the organism. This is sometimes expressed as "survival of the fittest", and it automatically selects the strongest.

The Watchmaker (Natural Selection) is blind.

 

Let me make one thing crystal clear: Evolution is a fact. No "belief" is necessary. If you know about Gravity, then you should also know about Evolution.

 

Again from the viewpoint of really wanting to know:

What is the difference between evolutionary change and mere variation within the genus? (i.e. above the species level. I understand that different species of finches were observed to have changed, but they were still finches.)

To clarify, I think, D Louth 77s statement I would say 'Acceptance of evolution precludes New Testament Christianity.'

 

Thank you

Hi James

Thank you for the reply.

Regards D Louth 77

PS Thank you Czechchris for giving a more suitable word. However I do not accept it (Evolution) as a fact. It is a Theory. Does believing/belief in something/anything preclude it from being a Fact ? True Or can you only believe/have belief in things which are not Fact/True ?

 

Think of the word "evolution" meaning "change". Any change is an example of evolution.

The darker peppered moths became more numerous because they were harder to spot on a sooty background. They are still the same species.

DNA sequencing shows that all living things on the earth are related to one another. Interesting, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

 

How many times?

Laymen often use the word "evolution" as shorthand for "the theory of evolution", and this is where the confusion about evolution starts. Evolution is a fact. It is as much a fact as the earth rotating around the sun*. There is a theory (called the theory of evolution) which attempts to explain the fact of evolution.

I believe that the earth revolves around the sun. Do you?

It would save an awful lot of time if you could educate yourself about evolution before attempting to discuss it.

[*There is also a theory which attempts to explain why the earth orbits the sun. The fact that there is a theory about this does not make the original observation uncertain]

 

No bub evolution is a theory which is strongly supported by facts - in the rigorous scientific meaning of each word.

 

At least Islam accepts that everything evolved over time.....

 

I was just reading through this thread for amusement and I came across the quote rendered above, which puzzled me a bit. I know some very fine Christians (in the sense of people who sincerely believe and who seek to live up to the very best principles of Christianity). Such people are the very best advertisement for the religion. Yet they have no problem in acknowledging evolution as established scientific fact.

As an aside, while hunting on Amazon for something else entirely, I came across this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Godless-Chu...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232011516&sr=1-3

If this is good example of a creationist Christian, I personally would go out of my way to avoid any contact with church!

 

Frustration

HI James

I have no problem with that FACT.

I understand your frustration. If I shared your position, I might feel the same. However I don't(please respect that and stop speaking to those who don't share your view/position as stupid/brain dead children.) The debate involving Evolution, has happened and your superior knowledge(though brizonbiovizer, feels you are not as qualified to discuss this topic as you would suggest you are. I offer no comment on this as I really don't know who is and is not), means that I and others can't debate with you as equals, so I wont do so. Equally I am frustrated by your blinkered/closed mind view of Christianity, a subject you have little true, deep understanding of and thus makes it hard for you to debate it fully either. You think you have an understanding, but clearly from what you have been saying you do not. I suspect this is also true of other religions(which I too am not qualified to discuss with any authority. So I don't,unlike You.)

I agree with the above point, because the data can be observed in a relatively short time period and thus can be viewed as fact.It can be confirmed. Evolution in my view can't, be confirmed.

I really didn't want to become involved in this thread but its hard to sit on the sidelines and see errors and lack of understanding being presented as facts. Why did I not want to get involved James because everything you say on this Forum and others about every topic, you claim to be the only person who's view is valid. No one else has any worth in your eyes(or so it appears in what you write). You don't know how to discuss with humility or grace. You use a sledge hammer(your Robust debating style) every time. It must be fabulous to be right every time. If you think that the rest of us aren't worth talking too(and for the most part you don't)you just lurk around and then shoot of one of your so called pearls of wisdom. Why are you on Forums to save us, from our collective deluded state ? in your view. If you learn to have some grace and approached things with humility perhaps, and you would have to share details about why you reach your conclusions:then we might learn from you. As it is all we get, is you howling at us. We learn nothing except, that you appear to have a problem with the rest of us. Maybe some of us might be wrong about some things but Audio is subjective and not an absolute. I had to say this, I have held my tongue since joining ZG. Enough is enough. In my opinion you are a BULLY.One who is entitled to give an opinion, but a Bully none the less.

Regards D Louth 77

 

I have no problem accepting 'change', or variation. I also think that variation, in the case of the peppered moth, has been misinterpreted. The darker form of the moth was always present, but they tended to be eaten, until the industrial revolution made the background bark darker with soot etc, when the lighter form was more easily detected. Since then the reverse has been happening, and the lighter form predominates in the cleaner environment. But at no time has this change resulted in a new species. (Sargent, Millar and Lambert in "Evolutionary Biology" reassessed the evidence on this and concluded that the research was flawed and that other factors were involved in the changing population too. They also found that some populations did not exhibit the same trend although the external factors appeared to be the same. The moths do not naturally rest on the bark of trees in daylight, but on the underside of leaves high up in the trees, so that predation by birds is probably not a significant factor.)
Selective breeding has produced new forms of existing animals, too. This is change, is it evolution?

The similarities in DNA does not surprise me. Whether they derive from each other, or are the product of the same mind in creation would be the point of discussion there. However, I am not a geneticist and am not qualified to discuss this in detail.

 

Speciation takes a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Debatable. Humans are products of nature, therefore if humans select what humans think are desirable characteristics in another species, this could be called "Natural Selection".

They don't derive from each other, but from a common ancestor. Think of it like a branching tree, with a common trunk.

 

Is that not human interference?
Surely natural selection would be a change due to enviromental influence?

 

Is mankind not an environmental influence?