No - That IS adaptation not evolution. Are you trying to tell me that if we squirt enough Raid on cockroaches we will get a new species? I don't think evolutionists are dogmatic, everyone here seems pretty flexible and open minded. Especially about creation.
The explaination that Faith is like just looking at someone 'looking guilty' is false. Faith is beleiving the CSI guys are doing their job and got the guilty party Faith in creation is in God doing his job What you would be arguing would be saying we don't have FAITH in evolutionary scientist. . . while having faith in CSI guys. . which I guess is the same. . . Unless I'm mistaken the original comparison was . . . Faith being just picking someone as guilty and Evolution Scientist being meticulously proven facts I guess basically . . it is a denegration of Faith while trying to uplift 'science' . . where neither has all the facts in play it is like having a thousand peice puzzle of a butterfly one may just have the outline of the puzzle and still trying to fit the peices .. . the other only has picture provided by the maker and then arguing who is most right about what it really looks like They could both be right . .and both be wrong Arguing it is silly Rocket River
My belief in creation is not linked to my doubts about evolution. I BELIEVE, I have FAITH that God created the world, I don't try to prove it. I have serious doubts about classical evolution, especially macro evolution that defines origins. Since I don't know how God created something out of nothing and I don't understand how nothing could become something without a cause (God) and since I fail to see how inorganic matter can evolve logically to the point of a human species I have serious doubts. Those who trust in evolution especially since the transitional fossils are missing are not using good science. Just my opinion. If classical macro evolution is accurate and absolute proven truth that wouldn't have any effect on my faith. But I am not convinced without the transitional fossil evidence that the theory should be a law of biology, physics or any other science. It is still a theory to me with some large holes.
Here's my hair brained idea of the month (every Clutchfan gets one): If a Higher Power exists outside the realm of our time, such as an extra dimension, then It could be aware of all sequences without direct interference/observance. The person who exists in one world collapse the events around him and can assume there's only one world. To him, events would be deterministic, but to the Higher Power, there would be multiple worlds where people collapse and merge worlds into their choosing. It's a difference in perspective. To an ant in an antfarm, what it sees around it is in 3D. But to us and viewed with some distance, the ant farm is two dimensional and the ant moves in 2 dimensional coordinates.
QUESTION: How does evolution explain the initial SPARK of life? serious question . . .i don't recall how it explain how ameobas became alive out of nonliving matter Rocket River
Reread the bit on Maxwell's Demon. And if you think you are more capable of defining what is legitimate science than the American Association for the Advancement of Science (who publish Science magazine), I urge you to take the issue up with them and correct them. I don't honestly understand what you are trying to say. By that I mean that this sentence doesn't make sense to me. Could you restate this? They aren't implying anything... any thing at all, to be honest. Following a discussion of previous difficulties in choosing a measure of complexity, they are choosing to use genetic complexity as a measure of complexity. If you think genetic complexity is not related to physical complexity, I would be interested to see why. Personally, I am willing to accept this association via Occam's Razor. So essentially you believe that if you can't touch something right at this moment, it doesn't exist? Apply this same standard across the board and we can conclude that nothing existed before you were born and when you die, the universe will end. I admit that I can't prove this is false. But I hope you won't be offended if I believe that the evidence indicates otherwise. Tell me how your alternate theory which replaces evolution stands up to the same treatment. Please. Again, I will reiterate that I think you are setting the boundary conditions so that nothing can be proven.
I stopped reading after the 2nd page but has anyone pointed out that evolution is a FACT and a THEORY? The theory is constantly undergoing slight modifications but the fact that evolution did and is still taking place does not change.
Crikey! Evolution is not the theory about the origin of life or the Universe, it is the theory of how DIFFERENT SPECIES CAME TO BE! Evolution doubters always try to attack challenge evolution on things that evolution doesn't address. It would be like me challenging aerodynamic theory by saying it is flawed because it doesn't explain how air came about.
I'm sorry rhester but as much as I respect you and admire your civility but this statement is patently wrong.
Maybe I'm just cranky but I don't follow what your point is. My point is that if you trust that CSI does its job right then you should trust that evolutionary scientists do their job as both use the same methodology and many of the same techniques. I don't see how that is a denigration of faith.
It doesn't, and origin theory doesn't do a great job at it since none have been very successful reproducing the conditions inside a lab. For all we know, life on earth could've started on another planet or object. God could've created the world and used evolution as the process to create humanity. God's all powerfulness means he doesn't have to be Lazy.
Let's put it like this If someone says . . . I DID IT . . I KILLED THE GUY . . and i did it this way and then the CSI guys come in with their crew and start saying something different It would be met with Skepticism NOW . . add to the fact that the CSI guys' evidence was VERY challengable. . . even sketchy . . . The Skepticism builds further Just as people don't want to beleive creationism on faith People are not going to give up generations . . . THOUSANDS OF YEARS of beleifs on sketchy info less than 150 yrs over If I came up with a new theory of gravity tomorrow. . . how long before it gain acceptance? Hell there are stories about scientist who have ideas and theories but are constantly blocked out of the scientific community because their ideals are 'Heretical!!!' No one gives up Beleifs without irrefutable proof the beleifs don't need proof. . but changing then does EVEN IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY In someways that community is like a mini-religion itself Rocket River
also . .. maybe just maybe their is just a Process of things We didn't have PC out of the blue we had calculators and Edvacs etc I look at the evolution of computers as a parallel Trust and Beleive Commander Data would have a hard time beleiving he evolved from an Abacus Rocket River
if i were to challenge evolution theory, i would challenge hw do the spontaneous mutations just happen. in general, I think its hard for any of us to fathom billions of years of time.
I appreciate this, your answers are thought out. No problem with demons I believe in them. I am not capable of defining legitimate science at all. I am a child when it comes to that. The AAAS and Science magazine can very well explain it for themselves. Worms are more simple than humans. I can observe that. So if you look for early worms on the evolutionary tree and you look for early humans you will find them separated by several periods. The more complex and intelligent species came much later than the less complex; according to evolution. But I was stating I don't need evolution to understand that worms are less complex than humans- that is observable. So if increasing complexity of life is used as evidence of evolution it is faulty. Faulty unless you can tell me what plants are evolving into. Now that would take science. Because if we know what plants evolved from, we can predict what they will evolve into. If I can look at the evolutionary tree and see what a worm evolves into, I can predict what worms today are evolving into. That is if they are still evolving. Maybe my questions could be best answered if evolution has stopped. Do you understand their paper is about a computer program someone wrote to model organic evolution. They are implying everything by writing a computer program. This paper is more about computer modeling than anything. It is like a design of experiment where you statistically model something that you predict will happened. They are predicting that evolution can account for increased complexity of life based upon a programs ability to do the same. Did you ever stop to consider that Intelligent programers where absolutely necessary for this model to function? No, I believe that if you had graduated continuous incremental increased complexity of life and species evolving for over 500 million years that in TRANSITION between species over that much time there would be an almost infinite number of transitional forms available for observation at any point in time, I repeat at ANY point in time and that record must be obvious in the fossil record for the gradual incremental transitions required by classical macro evolution to be valid. It is missing, all of it is missing. That troubles me, because it defies logic. My alternate theory is God created the world and all that is in it. And I cannot prove it scientifically, you either believe it or you don't. Sorry I could not provide you a better basis for what I believe. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Jesus Christ said that in Mark's gospel chapter 10 and verse 6. For now I believe his words. Yes, I will stick to that verse.
You are right, I made that error. Thanks for the correction. I do understand that those who believe in evolution have followed what today is good science. Perhaps it will change one day.
Yeah, I admit that if God had a hand in the evolutionary process then the established view of directionless adaptation could be challenged. There's no doubt it has been challenged scentifically but to set up an experiment with a higher power or #God's influence in mind is beyond our current understanding. Until we have the tools for it, this idea sits in the realm of philosophy.
I'm going to bug out of this thread because I've tried to respond a couple of times and can't seem to avoid being rude, when that is clearly not called for in any way. I will leave by mentioning punctuated equilibrium in response to one of the concerns rhester outlined.
actually I do not find any of your posts rude at all. I certainly respect the well thought out posts as I stated. That is how rocketsjudoka posts also. Stay around. You made very good points. Punctuated Equilibrium is a good theory for science dealing with the fossil gaps and the missing links. There is much debate about PE as far as speciation, but I do understand how it answers the missing link problem. PE is not logical to me, but it is far more understandable than classical evolution at least giving an explanation to the fossil record. It has been around about 30 yrs. now I think, but don't have time now to check your link.
I'm still amazed that a tadpole can grow legs and turn into a frog, that a caterpillar can metamorphisize into a butterfly and that a maggot can turn into a fly. That's insane!
