Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Mushy

What Would It Take For You To Believe In Evolution

Recommended Posts

1) I don't have them to hand. But ive seen numerous times pictures of all the different transitional fossils from a common ancestor to humans. In fact i saw a picture the other day of 12 or so skulls side by side. Just as a test, i compared the first skull with the second and could see very little difference. Then i waited a while and compared the second to the third and again could see very little difference. Then the third to the fourth and so on. By the time i got to the 12th i could see little to no difference in each step i looked at individualy. However, when i compared the 12th to the 1st skull they looked majorly different, and i think thats a good but very basic way of looking at evolution.

 

2) I don't know if you could create and equation for how life would evolve, i imagine if life had to evolve again from scratch, it would probably be quite different, it was just a lucky random mutation that worked, that made us evolve this way. I don't know how you could account for that in maths.

 

3) I don't know much about genomics, so im not even sure of what you are saying makes any sense. I'll leave it for someone else to hopefully answer, ill do a bit of googling and see if i can see any scientific response to the claims when i get a bit of spare time.

70483[/snapback]

1) I have seen many examples, but they do not suit the criteria I have asked for.. No Jumps.. No assumption needed

 

2) Biology is applied Chemistry, Chemistry is applied Physics, Physics is applied Maths.... Hence pretty much everything can be derived to a mathematical equation..

 

Much of what occurs in a cell can be regarded in an engineering (mathematical) concept... I find it hard to believe that evolution must be outside of this, and thus remain ambiguous... (smoke and mirrors perhaps? :) )

 

3) Feel free to have a look :) I have asked these questions to my lecturers and other evolutionists, I have not recieved a satisfactory scientific answer yet... Perhaps you can be the first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proof for possibility would be to demonstrate a "change from a lower to a higher species over generations".

 

Do you mean at a genetic level or using fossils?

70459[/snapback]

No, I'm talking about doing experimental test runs of did, like i.e. Gregror Mendel did to find laws of heredity.

On a genetic/genome level you won't be able to prove this, while one would include it in the generational Analysis, of course. To find some commonalities in the DNA sequences isn't really prove for common ancestry, it could be hint to common design as well. And the fossils, what are they supposed to prove? You can't prove they had any kids or ancestors of a lower/higher species. What the "fossil record" however does is to prove one or more major catastrophic events in the past (rapid burial) and demonstrate that there is a absence of transition between differing species. Animals appear in the layers suddenly and fully functional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I have seen many examples, but they do not suit the criteria I have asked for.. No Jumps.. No assumption needed

 

2) Biology is applied Chemistry, Chemistry is applied Physics, Physics is applied Maths.... Hence pretty much everything can be derived to a mathematical equation..

 

Much of what occurs in a cell can be regarded in an engineering (mathematical) concept... I find it hard to believe that evolution must be outside of this, and thus remain ambiguous... (smoke and mirrors perhaps? :) )

 

3) Feel free to have a look :) I have asked these questions to my lecturers and other evolutionists, I have not recieved a satisfactory scientific answer yet... Perhaps you can be the first?

70486[/snapback]

1) So you need every generation fossilised between two species? so hundreds of thousands of fossils, thats alot to ask for :P

 

2) if everything can be derived from a mathmatical equation, then i assume we can come up with an equation to explain what way a bird is going to move throughout its life, but if we cant, birds arnt real? :)

 

3) I'm no scientist, just have an interest in the subject and hate seeing other arrogant athiests. No need to be rude, even though it can be frustrating. No wonder you guys see us as some sort of evil doers lol.

 

 

 

 

No, I'm talking about doing experimental test runs of did, like i.e. Gregror Mendel did to find laws of heredity.

On a genetic/genome level you won't be able to prove this, while one would include it in the generational Analysis, of course. To find some commonalities in the DNA sequences isn't really prove for common ancestry, it could be hint to common design as well. And the fossils, what are they supposed to prove? You can't prove they had any kids or ancestors of a lower/higher species. What the "fossil record" however does is to prove one or more major catastrophic events in the past (rapid burial) and demonstrate that there is a absence of transition between differing species. Animals appear in the layers suddenly and fully functional.

 

 

If DNA explains a common designer, how come some organisms are so different compared to others, wouldnt a designer design them using the same "base"

 

The different layers we find the rocks prove that there could not have been a global flood. Hydrological sorting would not form the layers of rock we see now, in hydrological sorting the heavier rocks and sediment would sink first into a layer and each layer would be lighter and finer than the one before. Thats not what we see in the different layers.

 

Im interested in the flood though. How do you explain the extra water and the distribution of animals after the flood? I.e how did the kangaroos get to australia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) So you need every generation fossilised between two species? so hundreds of thousands of fossils, thats alot to ask for  :)

 

2) if everything can be derived from a mathmatical equation, then i assume we can come up with an equation to explain what way a bird is going to move throughout its life, but if we cant, birds arnt real?  :)

 

3) I'm no scientist, just have an interest in the subject and hate seeing other arrogant athiests. No need to be rude, even though it can be frustrating. No wonder you guys see us as some sort of evil doers lol.

 

If DNA explains a common designer, how come some organisms are so different compared to others, wouldnt a designer design them using the same "base"

 

Im interested in the flood though. How do you explain the extra water and the distribution of animals after the flood? I.e how did the kangaroos get to australia?

70490[/snapback]

1)No not every generation... (I never said this, you did).. since in modern species we do not see major morphological changes in each generation, (there is variation, but this is not evolution). All I ask is for a progress of transition from one to the other.. (Darwin also said that we should see this...).. More fossil proof will be to find the "failed" attempts at the production of a new design.. Since evolution is random, and "natural selection" weeds out those that do not adapt. Where are the ones that were weeded out? OR do you guys assume that evolution got the design right, first time every time?

 

2) The way a bird goes has no relevance to Biology as a science. Hence your reply has no relevance to my question.

 

3) Never said you were evil... I am agnostic, (theistic agnostic).

 

The same "base" is DNA..

 

Geologists have found VAST amounts of water inside the magma under the earths crust. It is either bonded to the minerals, or as pockets of super heated water... (the pressure ensures it is still liquid)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...If DNA explains a common designer, how come some organisms are so different compared to others, wouldnt a designer design them using the same "base"

 

DNA-structure can be considered to be of the same base for all organisms. All utilize proteins and certain mechanism in the cell are common. Many subsystems of organisms are so complex they infer design instead of a path of gradual changes via mutations.

The different layers we find the rocks prove that there could not have been a global flood. Hydrological sorting would not form the layers of rock we see now, in hydrological sorting the heavier rocks and sediment would sink first  into a layer and each layer would be lighter and finer than the one before. Thats not what we see in the different layers.

 

Most layers are that big and distributed, they can only have come from a global flood event. Layers are hydrologically internally and this is often visible even for a leaks eye. And there is nothing that prevents the layers from having come from more then one mud flow, which would easily explain having heavier materials in higher layers.

Im interested in the flood though. How do you explain the extra water and the distribution of animals after the flood? I.e how did the kangaroos get to australia?

70490[/snapback]

Actually no extra water is needed, if you level the earth surface as it is today, you'd get one big ocean deeper then a mile. The mountains as we know them today are a result of tectonic movements after the flood or why do you think one finds fossils there of marine creatures? Another issue would be coral reefs in depth where no light can reach them indicating that the sea has sunk deeply at these places.

As for the distribution of animals, they could easily have migrated to many places, when the sea levels were lower (due to trapped inland water, ice age glaciation, etc.). Humans could have introduced them at other remote places and many animals can actually swim and drive on wood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an athiest, i accept evolution as the best understanding we have for the diversity of life. When i read about all the evidence that backs it up, it leaves little doubt that the theory of evolution is true.

 

I really think that the main reason people don't believe in it, is because they don't understand it. Anyway, i was wondering what it would take for you to accept evolution as a fact?

70429[/snapback]

I was going to respond to this post right after you posted it, and provide for the many presuppositions and erroneous prejudices you built within your OP. But I waited, and I’m glad I did so, because there have been many sound and reasonable refutations to your assertions (that you haven’t answered yet I might add).

 

First – Let me say that I too was once an atheist that had the same faith based worldview that you currently espouse. But after many years of study and reflection, I have found absolutely NO empirical evidence to back up “macro-evolutionâ€ÂÂ. If you could provide said evidences, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

Secondly – When you say that you have very “little doubt that the theory of evolution is trueâ€ÂÂ, you proceed on faith and not fact. But, if you could provide said evidences, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

Thirdly – To assert that “the main reason people don't believe in it (macro-evolution), is because they don't understand it.†is a large assumption on your part, and a very prejudicial and arrogant statement on your part as well.

 

Fourthly – What would it take for me to accept macro-evolution as a fact? Evidence would be a start. Why? Because there is absolutely no empirical evidence what-so-ever for macroevolution yet adduced. Just presuppositions and "a priori" reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I don't have them to hand. But ive seen numerous times pictures of all the different transitional fossils from a common ancestor to humans. In fact i saw a picture the other day of 12 or so skulls side by side.

 

Mushy,

 

The problem your having is believing that this is evidence of evolution and assuming that we haven't investigated this evidence - just ignoring it because we believe the bible instead.

 

I can tell you what everyone of those skulls are and can tell you that there isn't a single one that shared a common ancestor with humans and chimps.

 

Once again, it isn't my faith seeing the evidence the way I percieve it, but secular science that has proven it.

 

A. aferensis is aligned with Gorillas

 

Humans related to Oranutans, not Chimps

 

Let's take this quote by William Thompson when testing hypothesis.

 

'I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.' William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 - 1907)

 

Now let's put it in numbers.

 

The DNA in Y chromosome in humans and chimps only share ~70% similarity. That isn't just small scale differences, but entire gene groups.

 

New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims

 

If we give evolution every benefit of the doubt and give it 10 million years to accomplish the split from a common ancestor, then we would only be able to account for 1,667 beneficial mutations in that time.

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...indpost&p=32706

 

 

Now can you express "In Numbers" the reason why we reject evolution?

 

 

 

 

 

Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an athiest, i accept evolution as the best understanding we have for the diversity of life. When i read about all the evidence that backs it up, it leaves little doubt that the theory of evolution is true.

 

I really think that the main reason people don't believe in it, is because they don't understand it. Anyway, i was wondering what it would take for you to accept evolution as a fact?

70429[/snapback]

Boy, where to start.

 

1) If evolutionists would actually allow something to challenge it. Instead of this protection game that includes character assassination. Because when you have to go out of the bounds of science to prove what you believe, then it also proves that your claims are weak and will not hold up. If not, then why is it done all the time?

 

2) If science through the theory of evolution was not about conformism. All evidence, all remarks, and everyone has to conform to this theory, If this theory were such a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence, conformism and character assassination would not be needed. In fact a true proven fact would be so convincing that no one could even come up with an argument against it, But that is not what we see is it?

 

3) If science would not add more to the evidence then what is there (Exaggerate). Example: Saying that Lucy walked up right when Lucy had the hips of an Ape like animal that does not. Also presenting Lucy as having fully formed human feet when there was "zero" evidence showing this.

Posted Image

Posted Image

 

Doing whatever it takes (conformism) to make evidence like Lucy walk upright as shown in the video below.

 

Ef8aAfWbpjc

 

4) If science would quit using animation as evidence for processes that cannot be observed to convince people that it actually happened. Like the video below that's named: How evolution happens. It's ironic that it only happens to the point claimed in animation only.

 

yVqJ_mQazik

 

I work with animation (flash animation). Animation is virtual fantasy unless you are animating a real observable process. No one saw that fish in the animation evolve, did they? So the animation is based on imagination.

 

5) If evolutionists would admit to the problems with the so called fossil record. Ones where "all" living fossils prove that it is wrong. How?

 

Posted Image

 

Every living fossil is found in one layer and alive today. Yet not in any layer above that showing that it lived and it did not change. Example: The coelacanth fish is found in the Devonian layer. And there are 7 layers above that, that it does not show up proving that it survived. The Sea Pen is found in the lowest layer and found alive today. Yet no one is found in the layers above that. A actual record of something would keep accurate records, not gaps. And if this were a fluke for a couple of living fossils then they could be a explanation. But it applies to every living fossil known. They are "never" found in any layer above it, proving the the column is not accurate and was not laid over time.

 

The Bible says that the flood first started by breaking up the fountains of the deep. Which means the sentiments from that would have buried what was on the bottom of the sea first. Then work it's way up to higher swimming animals and then land animals. And if that is the way it was done, then the proof would be that some complex bottom dwellers got buried in the lowest layer, and the sorting would not show how living fossils survived. And guess what? There is evidence of this. The trilobite is very complex for the lower layer.

 

Posted ImagePosted Image

And there is no evolution tree to it, or from it, showing how it evolved this complexity, or what it should have evolved into. And I already mentioned the problem with living fossils. But as with every evolutionists, this will be ignored, or excused away, because a challenge to evolution means that it would be shown for what it is.

 

6) That evolution is really a pagan religion more based on a pagan belief that started back in Egyptian times. The pagan Egyptian religions at that time believed that humans can from animals (macro-evolution). This is why they painted humans on their walls that were half animal, and their pagan gods were also part animal. They also believed that all life came from the slime around the Nile River (abiogenesis). And lived in water, then on land. Sound familiar?

 

Now why would Darwin's idea sound so similar? Because his only degree was in theology, and to get a theology degree you have to learn about other religious beliefs. So Darwin took ideas from a pagan religion and made it sound scientific. Just like he took ideas from his grandfather's book called Zoonomia, and wrote them in his own book and never gave his grandfather credit (plagiarism).

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

 

So if he took ideas from his grandfather's book, why not also take ideas from a pagan religion?

 

I can make a much longer list if you like, but I figure this is enough for now. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

=Mushy,Mar 28 2011, 06:41 AM]

As an athiest, i accept evolution as the best understanding we have for the diversity of life. When i read about all the evidence that backs it up, it leaves little doubt that the theory of evolution is true.

 

I really think that the main reason people don't believe in it, is because they don't understand it. Anyway, i was wondering what it would take for you to accept evolution as a fact?

70429[/snapback]

Mushy,

 

I would believe it if, and this is a big if, evolution were possible. If you can overcome the mathematical improbability of evolution happening, I would consider it. I can give you other reasons, but I will let you respond to this one first.

 

Laws of Probability or Large Numbers.

 

Ten to the fiftieth power: If the chances of something happening is greater than this number, then this event will never happen. Mathematicians calculate the probability of a single protein coming by random chance to be ten to the one hundredth and ninety-first power. Here we have proven Romans 1:19-20, “… because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.†Evolutionists agree:

 

The simplest living cell could not have arisen by chance. Johnyoo McFadden (Evolutionist and professor of Molecular Biology and Quantum Physics), Quantum Foundation, 2000, p. 85. Note. This atheist professor knows the truth of God but still rejects Him.

 

The origin of life is also a stubborn problem with no solution in sight… Franklin M. Harold, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Colorado State U, “The Way of the Cell,†2001, p. 235

 

If evolution is unable to explain the origin of life through naturalistic means, then it is without foundation. Why should I accept evolution when atheists can’t produce the evidence? It’s logical and reasonable to believe that God, not unknown events, created life.

 

Teejay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an athiest, i accept evolution as the best understanding we have for the diversity of life. When i read about all the evidence that backs it up, it leaves little doubt that the theory of evolution is true.

 

I really think that the main reason people don't believe in it, is because they don't understand it. Anyway, i was wondering what it would take for you to accept evolution as a fact?

70429[/snapback]

The best understanding may or may not be truth though. Because I find a bunch of soft bodied marine ichnofossils on the dside of a mountain, collect hypotheses of how it got there, and decide for myself which one "sounds" the best--does not make it truth.

 

THe ichnofossils can not speak. However, the God that I serve and believe in is alive. He speaks. He acts. He fulfills his word. But he will do nothing for someone who does not believe in Him. But he loves you and sent his Son to die for you. I hope that's not a cliche to you. He does affect me and many others. Jesus said, If any man does the will of my father, he will know that my words are TRUE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

=Mushy,Mar 28 2011, 06:41 AM]

As an athiest, i accept evolution as the best understanding we have for the diversity of life. When i read about all the evidence that backs it up, it leaves little doubt that the theory of evolution is true.

 

I really think that the main reason people don't believe in it, is because they don't understand it. Anyway, i was wondering what it would take for you to accept evolution as a fact?

70429[/snapback]

Mushy,

 

I challenge you to present this "evidence" that has led you to accept evolution as fact and creation as false.

 

So as not to overwhelm you, let's take one category of evidence at a time and we can discuss. For example, can you present me evidence from the fossil record.

 

We need only concern ourselves with the Cambrian and Precambrian periods. If evolution where true, we would find all the transitional forms between Cambrian and Precambrian. But what we find in the fossil record are very complex creatures with zero transitions. I will not settle for a few questionable transitions. There should be millions. Great claims require great evidence. Four-inch knobs on a 70-foot whale are pimples and not legs. Theorizing that these pimples became legs or wings is an arbitrary belief and not science.

 

Given the fact of evolution, one could expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead he or she finds gaps in just about all phyletic series.

 

Ernst Mayr (Darwin’s Twentieth Century defender) – Former Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, “What Evolution Is†2001, p. 14

Based on the evolution model, the entire foundation for Darwinian evolution (the fossil record) is missing. If they have no foundation, they have no starting point.

 

Also, you wrote that "People don't believe it [evolution] because they don't understand it." For I or you to understand how something happened, we would first have to have some evidence that it happened and then evidence of how it happened. I submit that you can't possibly know how evolution happened. Absent evidence in the fossil, what evidence could you use to explain or believe this?

 

Teejay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mushy,

 

I challenge you to present this "evidence" that has led you to accept evolution as fact and creation as false.

 

So as not to overwhelm you, let's take one category of evidence at a time and we can discuss.  For example, can you present me evidence from the fossil record.

 

We need only concern ourselves with the Cambrian and Precambrian periods.  If evolution where true, we would find all the transitional forms between Cambrian and Precambrian.  But what we find in the fossil record are very complex creatures with zero transitions.  I will not settle for a few questionable transitions.  There should be millions.  Great claims require great evidence.  Four-inch knobs on a 70-foot whale are pimples and not legs.  Theorizing that these pimples became legs or wings is an arbitrary belief and not science.

 

Given the fact of evolution, one could expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants.  But this is not what the paleontologist  finds.  Instead he or she finds gaps in just about all phyletic series.

 

Ernst Mayr (Darwin’s Twentieth Century defender) – Former Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, “What Evolution Is†2001, p. 14

Based on the evolution model, the entire foundation for Darwinian evolution (the fossil record) is missing.  If they have no foundation, they have no starting point.

 

Also, you wrote that "People don't believe it [evolution] because they don't understand it."  For I or you to understand how something happened, we would first have to have some evidence that it happened and then evidence of how it happened.  I submit that you can't possibly know how evolution happened.  Absent evidence in the fossil, what evidence could you use to explain or believe this?

 

Teejay

70643[/snapback]

Teejay has given you a worthy challenge. Here is a quote from Stephen J Gould on the fossil record. No one is saying he is acknowledging falsification of evolution. But he has acknowledged the fossil record as it sits.

 

"When we investigate natural history, we find not living things "evolving into different anatomical structures," but ones that have remained unchanged, even over the course of hundreds of millions of years. This lack of change is referred to by scientists as "stasis." Living fossils and organisms that have not survived down to the present day, but which have left their fossils behind in various strata of the Earth's history are concrete proof of stasis in the fossil record. And this stasis shows that no gradual process of evolution ever occurred."

 

Stasis and the sudden appearance of fully formed, similar to modern animals, fauna are evidence that forces evos to spin by infererence on other facts. Facts like more diversity in one fossil group (in a geological member or group) than in another. But the fact remains that stasis is found between the different fossil groups that are found together in the Earth.

 

Posted Image

Ammonites emerged some 350 million years ago, then became extinct 65 million years ago. But during the intervening 300 million years, the structure seen in the fossils never changed.

 

Posted Image

Horseshoe crab fossil from the Ordovician period. This 450-million-year-old fossil is no different from specimens living today.

 

Courtesy of http://www.living-fossils.com/2_1.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt you guys have to worry much about any responses, as Mushy was (self admittedly) only here for stir the pot, troll and attempt to cause Christians to "look the fool". And, as you can tell by his lack of evidential responses to his assertions, or even post rational replies, his plan back fired.

 

At best, all he could muster was straw man arguments, goal post shifting, non sequitur fallacies and name calling.

 

If you go back through his posts, you'll find excellent examples of the above, as well as bait and switch tactics. He's been caught in his tactics, and since they were exposed, he refused to come back and answer for his assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt you guys have to worry much about any responses, as Mushy was (self admittedly) only here for stir the pot, troll and attempt to cause Christians to "look the fool". And, as you can tell by his lack of evidential responses to his assertions, or even post rational replies, his plan back fired.

 

At best, all he could muster was straw man arguments, goal post shifting, non sequitur fallacies and name calling.

 

 

 

Could you please provide an example? I'v just gone through the thread and found him almost overly cautious.

 

Would anyone be interested in starting a new thread and going through your problems with evolution one by one?

 

I dont wont to seem like a troll and if you find me offensive feel free to warn me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please provide an example?

71928[/snapback]

Absolutely... I'll provide numerous: simply click on Mushy's name in his avatar, then click on "find members post". The common thread you'll see is that of time wasting, because his time wasting is not contained within this thread alone.

 

Further, his entire OP is framed in speculation and belief statements.

 

I'v just gone through the thread and found him almost overly cautious.

71928[/snapback]

The underlying premise at the outset is false, and a common evolutionist tactic.

 

I really think that the main reason people don't believe in it, is because they don't understand it.

70429[/snapback]

It is obvious by this thread alone that his premise is incorrect, as most of the posters here who disagree with his premise provide more than enough understanding of evolution to refute his premise.

 

He further fails to supply anything other than opinion and faith statements in attempts to support his initial premises. It doesn’t take much to notice that he totally ignores the facts presented in opposition of his initial premises, as he continues to counter with more opinion and faith statements instead of providing facts to support his assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The underlying premise at the outset is false, and a common evolutionist tactic.

Sorry what do you mean by evolutionist tactic? Are we a type of people?

 

 

Would anyone be interested in starting a new thread and going through your problems with evolution one by one?

Any interest? Im in my last year of high school and admittely have only really heard the argument for evolution. The most i hear on counter arguments are the ones you laugh at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry what do you mean by evolutionist tactic? Are we a type of people?

Any interest? Im in my last year of high school and admittely have only really heard the argument for evolution. The most i hear on counter arguments are the ones you laugh at.

71972[/snapback]

It is a term used to describe people who believe in evolution... Just as creationist is used to believe in Special Creation... Or IDist are those who believe in ID.

 

 

The facts are that the claims being put forth via the education system are either fundamentally flawed or are told in a way that exagerates them in a light that makes them seem more probable. This is not scientific, as there are many articles that have highlighted or brought to light logical problems against the theory, yet these problems are almost always ignored.

 

Don't worry this occurs around the globe, as I had it in my evolution class last year at University. What arguements / claims did you hear in school?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I (we) say "Observe" this doesn't necessary JUST mean to "See" something "physical" but includes observing the "Affects". For instance, we observe a magnet pulling on metal. We don't "See" some "physical" manifestation of the force that the magnet is exerting on the metal but we certainly observe its "affects" (influence) on the piece of metal, as in gravity. In gravity we don't "See" the force pulling matter but we certainly can observe the effects of the “force†of. So while observation most certainly includes SEEING, it is not limited by that.

 

However, where Evolution is concerned (Macro) we DO need to SEE as we do in Micro. Because in THIS case we aren’t just dealing with the "AFFECT" of FORCE, "energy" or "power", etc. The difference is SEEING the CAUSE verses just seeing the AFFECTS only. We need to see the “cause†or “mechanism†behind Macro.

 

70449[/snapback]

It must have been a late night for me. I just want to clarify myself here. :blink:

 

Observations are not limited by seeing the "physical" in that we can observe the "forces" of nature acting upon it as well. In other words, I don't "see", "observe" some kind of "blue" light eminating from the ground that shows gravity pulling on objects above it or some "green" haze appearing when we apply a magnet near metal. We can only observe the "affects" of gravity and magnetism but not the actual "force" that is pulling objects down to earth from gravity or metal onto magnets. I hope that makes sense.

 

As far as seeing the "cause" for a macro occurrence, I mean to say that you can't just see a big tiger and see a house cat and make the conclusion that they were related based on that observation alone. Macro requires seeing the "mechanism" that is causing these changes in some way. You may not even have to observe the "mechanism" per se but certainly the affects of "some" mechanism should be observable. So if I see a dog giving birth to a puppy that seems to be growing something featherlike out of it's back, I may not see the "mechanism" that caused that but I certainly can see the affect of that mechanism. As far as macro is concerned, we don't ever observe either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must have been a late night for me. I just want to clarify myself here. :blink:

 

Observations are not limited by seeing the "physical" in that we can observe the "forces" of nature acting upon it as well. In other words, I don't "see", "observe" some kind of "blue" light eminating from the ground that shows gravity pulling on objects above it or some "green" haze appearing when we apply a magnet near metal. We can only observe the "affects" of gravity and magnetism but not the actual "force" that is pulling objects down to earth from gravity or metal onto magnets. I hope that makes sense.

 

As far as seeing the "cause" for a macro occurrence, I mean to say that you can't just see a big tiger and see a house cat and make the conclusion that they were related based on that observation alone. Macro requires seeing the "mechanism" that is causing these changes in some way. You may not even have to observe the "mechanism" per se but certainly the affects of "some" mechanism should be observable. So if I see a dog giving birth to a puppy that seems to be growing something featherlike out of it's back, I may not see the "mechanism" that caused that but I certainly can see the affect of that mechanism. As far as macro is concerned, we don't ever observe either.

71980[/snapback]

 

I think mushy has stopped posting.

 

 

What arguements / claims did you hear in school?

Its hard to state exact claims( like what are the claims about atoms). Basically this year(in the general evolution segment) we just retouched on how evolution works and then focused more on the types of speciation and what causes it( plus the difference between gradualism and PE). We have just finished the human evolution segment where we covered how humans evolved, how they work out how previous homo species lived and how the dating techniques work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think mushy has stopped posting.

Its hard to state exact claims( like what are the claims about atoms). Basically this year(in the general evolution segment) we just retouched on how evolution works and then focused more on the types of speciation and what causes it( plus the difference between gradualism and PE). We have just finished the human evolution segment where we covered how humans evolved, how they work out how previous homo species lived and how the dating techniques work.

71986[/snapback]

Hi zendra and welcome. The title of this thread is "What would it take for you to believe in evolution". Since this thread interested you, I am curious, why do you believe in evolution (molecules to man theories) and why don't you believe in Christ? I am assuming that your profile selection of "atheist" is correct of course. And finally, if you don't believe Christianity, then what would it take for you to believe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi zendra and welcome.  The title of this thread is "What would it take for you to believe in evolution".  Since this thread interested you, I am curious, why do you believe in evolution (molecules to man theories) and why don't you believe in Christ?

 

I suppose evolution made sense to me, kind of like physics. It depends what you mean by christ. I believe there was a man named Jesus and the bible may provide a rough outline of his life. I dont believe he was anything more than a man.

 

And finally, if you don't believe Christianity, then what would it take for you to believe?

Interesting, turning the question around. Hard to say, I'm somewhat less inclined to convert in too much of a hurry. I said before that i had only heard the evolution side of the argument and so this may sound arrogant. The thing is ill hear an argument for creationism, believe it, then later ill hear it refuted. Because of this i try to remain skeptical because often 'miracles' can actually be explained without the supernatural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi zendra and welcome.  The title of this thread is "What would it take for you to believe in evolution".  Since this thread interested you, I am curious, why do you believe in evolution (molecules to man theories) and why don't you believe in Christ?

 

I suppose evolution made sense to me, kind of like physics. It depends what you mean by christ. I believe there was a man named Jesus and the bible may provide a rough outline of his life. I dont believe he was anything more than a man.

72003[/snapback]

If you were simply talking about micro in you analogy, then you would have some validity in your example, as you can show that micro (which is nothing more than adaption within a kind/species) can be shown to be true. But macro, on the other hand has no application in this analogy, as there is absolutely no evidence that is anything other than a hypothesis or model. So the correlation fails.

 

In as much as Jesus is concerned, the historical facts extant, the contemporaneous eyewitness testimonies, even the secular and hostile historical writings lend more credence to his life than any other ancient figure, let alone the heady weight supporting His ministry, philosophy, miracles, death, burial, resurrection, continued ministry and ascension, AND the life, ministry, miracles and martyrdom of his apostles and their students. I would suggest you take a look at the below link for further information on the subject:

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...topic=1957&st=0

 

 

And finally, if you don't believe Christianity, then what would it take for you to believe?

Interesting, turning the question around. Hard to say, I'm somewhat less inclined to convert in too much of a hurry. I said before that i had only heard the evolution side of the argument and so this may sound arrogant. The thing is ill hear an argument for creationism, believe it, then later ill hear it refuted. Because of this i try to remain skeptical because often 'miracles' can actually be explained without the supernatural.

72003[/snapback]

I'm not aware of anyone who converts “in too much of a hurryâ€ÂÂ; in fact, it took me quite a while to convert from a hedonistic atheist to Christianity, so I would agree with you, and further stipulate that I doubt seriously that this was the intent of performedge during his post. Having said that, I would further request examples of these arguments for creationism that were refuted, and the miracles that were explained without the supernatural, as I have personally never seen evidence that refuted either. I have no doubt that there are many skeptics who will posit biased opinion, but this is hardly evidence or proof.

 

As famed agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To profess a disbelief in the existence of design or of the deity is essentially, in itself, a theological statement which a scientist cannot make on the structure or on the strength of his own discipline. He can only make it as a personal belief."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im having trouble using the quote or text format function sorry. So ill give space between quotes and my reply.

 

 

If you were simply talking about micro in you analogy, then you would have some validity in your example, as you can show that micro (which is nothing more than adaption within a kind/species) can be shown to be true. But macro, on the other hand has no application in this analogy, as there is absolutely no evidence that is anything other than a hypothesis or model. So the correlation fails.

72006[/snapback]

 

 

I dont understand the difference people see between macro and micro. It sounds kind of like saying that even though a man can run 10 metres there's is no way he could run 100( given time). Macro is just checking the adaptations after a longer period, im sure if you searched google you would find the evidence your looking for. And what analogy were you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand the difference people see between macro and micro.

72020[/snapback]

What's so hard to understand?

 

We have evidence that organisms adapt to fluctuations in the environment.

 

Do we have any real evidence that these adaptions continue indefinitely? No.

 

Do we have evidence that organisms basically remain the same despite existing for "millions and millions" of years? Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have evidence that organisms adapt to fluctuations in the environment.

 

Do we have any real evidence that these adaptions continue indefinitely? No.

 

Are you telling me that plants and animals will just suddenly stop adapting. That the fact we have observed them happening doesn't mean they will continue to happen.

 

 

Do we have evidence that organisms basically remain the same despite existing for "millions and millions" of years? Yes.

Sorry but iv seen many diligent requesting of evidence for evolution, I would like you to provide this evidence of organisms remaining the same over millions of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms