Evolution

[wiwiw]

Well apothanein kerdos, you can do whatever you want: Then reap the consequences of those actions. There's nothing mystical or complicated about that. And when a scientist lets his own biased interfer with reality, then he's not being a scientist, he's being a religious zealot. Exactly what religious views does science backup? Eh, you ever hear of "Project-Steve"? Anyway, I like bananas, heck, I wouldn't mind being a banana, they rock. "Irreversibly complex"...a less complex eye is still an eye inn't it? A less complex digestive system still digests doesn't it? A skin flap works just as well for gliding as a fully developed wing doesn't it?

"When they drop the big one, all that's going to be left are cockroaches and Cher"

[apothanein kerdos]

And when a scientist lets his own biased interfer with reality, then he's not being a scientist, he's being a religious zealot.

Then you disagree with hypothesis'? This leads to blind science. Darwinian evolution began as a philosophy (hypothesis) that interpreted "facts." If using a philosophy to create a science is wrong, then the whole of evolution is wrong because it first relied upon naturalism and then upon Darwinism. It was only after these two philosophies developed that we began to see science only utilize them.

Exactly what religious views does science backup?

Christianity

Eh, you ever hear of "Project-Steve"?

What in the world does a secularists parody have to do with anything in this topic?

"Irreversibly complex"...a less complex eye is still an eye inn't it?

No, it's not. It loses its function and ability to work. Remove the lense and everything is a giant blue that cannot be distinquished. Detach the retina and the eye is completely useless. Remove the pupils ability to adapt to light changes and humans are forced to avoid certain situations of lighting. The complexity of the eye is very much machine-like. So is DNA, the cell, certain acids...almost all building blocks of life are so complex, that if one part was removed, the entire structure would crumble. This is not an argument for a Designer from absense or unexplainable objects, this is validating proof of a Creator by the presence of such things. Darwin himself admitted that if basic building blocks could be proven to be complex and needed to be complex to function, his entire naturalistic theory would fail.

A less complex digestive system still digests doesn't it?

Same analysis as above. What you are asserting is the equivalent to, "A car without an engine is still a car, right?" The answer is no, it's not. It's a chunk of metal.

A skin flap works just as well for gliding as a fully developed wing doesn't it?

No, due to the density of the skin.

[wiwiw]

Eh? When I typed less complex, I don't mean less complete, I mean an eye that's not as well developed. Like seeing in color verses black and white. Parts of organs don't 'come about in halves' however, at one point they could have been more simplistic in their entirety. Flies spew digestive fluids on their meals because their guts aren't advanced enough to digest it internally, but they still function all the same. And...least we forget flying squirrels use skin flaps to glide.

Of course there's going to be a hypothesis, but once it's been established the hypothesis was off the mark, then it's time to start rolling down another road.

We no longer have a Darwin, we only have a Dawkin tackling an improbable mountain. Theories change...hey, you could even say they evolve.

Last I checked, no part of Christianity is backed up by science aside from a bit about a fish being safe to eat if it has both fins and scales or some such, that hardly varifies an entire novel. It's a book of imperialistic morality, historical fiction, primitive psychology, and cultural parables meant to guide the reader in living, thinking, and acting in ways that would have pleased the writers. Heck, the bible doesn't even mention DNA, genetic inheritence, passive eugenics, or PHI. It's neither compatible with nor apposing science. It's like the left and right side of the brain. One side is used primarily for artsy stuff, the other is used for geometric stuff. At one point those who follow its teachings were honest enough to declair "if it says it's flat, it's flat!" Rather than stumbling through intellectual double backflip summersaults. What's changed?

I mention project-steve because it's funny. Also, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not nearly as majestic as the Invisible Pink Unicorn but certainly a potential contender in the near future. Oh come on, it's text on a screen. Smile

[apothanein kerdos]

Thanks for the link 2thPoint, I have it bookmarked.

Eh? When I typed less complex, I don't mean less complete, I mean an eye that's not as well developed. Like seeing in color verses black and white. Parts of organs don't 'come about in halves' however, at one point they could have been more simplistic in their entirety.

No, they couldn't have. Again, the eye, in its complexity (in order to function correctly) must have all parts present. TO take this further, look to a cell, what it is composed of, and we see that it is a highly complex organism. In other words, a cell, in its most basic function (just living) HAS to be complex. Natrualistic tendencies do not explain it; in fact, they contradict it. Under the naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution (yes, it does exist, remember the philosophy was created first and then the "science") a building block cannot be inherently complex, otherwise the theory crumbles. The problem is, DNA, molecular biology, human anatomy, the construction of the universe, etc all show life to be complex from the beginning. This is an argument for a Creator. In fact, the more we study true evolutionary science, the more we come to realize the only way for evolution to have occured was to be guided.

Flies spew digestive fluids on their meals because their guts aren't advanced enough to digest it internally, but they still function all the same.

Actually, they throw up on almost everything they land upon (note the word "almost) as a way to re-track themselves. A fly will land on food but not stop there...it will go from food item to food item, throwing up on every item and following the smell back to that item. It's a way to mark food for other flies. This is why there is never just one at a picnic. In other words, the vomiting isn't a defect, it's an essential.

And...least we forget flying squirrels use skin flaps to glide.

Which is a highly complex thing, I suggest you study it sometime.

Of course there's going to be a hypothesis, but once it's been established the hypothesis was off the mark, then it's time to start rolling down another road.

That's the problem. When the hypothesis is so close to a central worldview of the scientist, it's hard to say, "Oh well." For a secular scientist to admit his hypothesis is wrong (that the universe and life within began as a random chance spurred on by natural selection) he has to reshape how he views the world entirely. It means he has to acknowldge there is a "higher power" which flies in the face of his core beliefs.

Last I checked, no part of Christianity is backed up by science

Then you haven't checked

Dietary laws, round earth, poetic view of creation....all of this (and more) is backed up by science. However, why does science have to be the final say? This puts science in this "unfallible realm" category where we teach it can never be wrong. The problem is, scientific theories are always revamped, always looked at again, always challenged, and always changing. This is because science is a fallible art. Thus to use it as the final say on anything is absurd.

It's a book of imperialistic morality,

You never answered my question and now I'm pushing for an answer. It's bolded and underlined so you'll see it:

CAN I RAPE AND MURDER WHOMEVER I WANT SO LONG AS IT IS BENEFICIAL TO ME?

historical fiction

Which part does documented history prove wrong? I'd really love to see you attempt this one.

primitive psychology

Actually modern psychology has shown that humans, of all religions, generally rely on the basic tennets of the Bible (as in, they have to, even if they are athiest). Such as having a family, feeling loved, etc.

Heck, the bible doesn't even mention DNA, genetic inheritence, passive eugenics, or PHI.

Neither does Origin of Species. Why does it have to mention these things in orer to survive. Also, you're wrong. It talks about in Romans how we each inheret a sin nature. It teaches that we are all fallen (we act sinful) because it is built within us. This is an understanding of how genes work without having ever discovered what a gene was.

One side is used primarily for artsy stuff, the other is used for geometric stuff.

No, the Bible is indeed factual, backed up by factual evidence. The Bible is not "artsy" or some emotional crutch...it is indeed a book of fact validated by fact.

If you're going to debate, you better get started...

[nebula]

Evolution has more basis in what can be observed than Creationism (as you call it "intelligent design") Or at least parts of it. And while we may not have 'missing links' one can not observe an animal vegitable or mineral magically appearing out of thin air, ever. However we can observe the life-cycle of a tad-pol. "Intelligent Design" is mythology, and there's mythology electives already in existance, so let's just toss it in there.

First of all, Creationism and Intelligent Design are separate entities.

Creationism is grounded in taking Genesis 1 as a scientific document.

Intelligent Design is about looking at life scientifically, just buying itno the atheistic-evolution claim that order and complexity magically came about on its own via random chance mutations. It makes no claims on the identity of the "designer," nor does it try to understand the ''designer," just noting that there had to be a guiding hand in the processes we see. ID also does not challenge the time frame of events as Creationism does.

Second, I have yet to hear an evolutionist explain the mechanics of Punctuated Equilibrium. While Darwinianism claims gradual change, Punctuated Equilibrium claims change "spurts." This is what was observed in the fossil record. But no one can explain how such rapid changes occur. One layer contains these creatures; the next layer contains a different set of creatures. By evolution, there should be a layer between of mixed creatures, but ther is not. Punctuated Equilibrium is the answer for why there is not, but how and why did this rapid change take place?

There are more faries in evolution that in Christianity.

[apothanein kerdos]

Just to add to the flaws in Punk-eek....the layers are only seperated by a few million years (if that)....hardly enough time for one species to evolve into an entirely new species.

[aaronjm]

Quick question, why is that Christians are mainly attacked for their belief in Genesis, why aren't the Jews also standing up for this?? I'm sure they do, I just haven't been exposed to it.