Science academies around world urge evolution lessons

[Nero's Fiddle]

It is logical to conclude that this extends back to abiogenesis, but this is an area outside of evolution.

Not so. It is an area outside of micro or macro evolution. It is actually part of Organic evolution (the origin of life), and is part of established evolutionary doctrine.

For convenience, let me list what is encompassed in the term "evolution":

1) Cosmic Evolution (Big Bang, origin of matter)

2) Chemical Evolution (Higher chemicals- hydrogen becomes other elements)

3) Planetary and Stellar Evolution (Origin of heavenly bodies)

4) Organic Evolution (Origin of life- abiogenesis)

5) Macroevolution (Animals change into new kinds)

6) Microevolution (Variation within a kind)

ONLY #6 has been observed; only it is science. The rest is theory, requiring faith.

[Rober H]

Life could not have resulted from a random act of chance or blind, dumb, luck.

Yes, it can. Nice to see simplicity in an often chaotic board.

Evolution's entire premise rests on life coming from non- living material and is flawed and found wanting at it's foundation.

Evolution's premise is that species are capable of generating new ones via natural selection. It is logical to conclude that this extends back to abiogenesis, but this is an area outside of evolution. It is the realm of chemistry and biochemistry.

I trust you have heard of the (in)famous experiments to recreate the 'primordial soup'? And that some amino acids where created? Given that this was an imprefect recreation of an ancient phenomenon that was carried out in a minute fraction of the time it took in reality, the results are most impressive. Imagine the results if the experiment was continued for millions of years? We may even end up with a mini Garden of Eden in the petri dish.

I have heard of the failure to produce life in the lab.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

Scientists try to create life.

Did the Miller/Fox experiment prove that life could eventually have arisen in some ancient sea struck by lightning? No, their results actually weakened the case. The mixture of amino acids and other simple chemicals produced is not correct for producing life. All known life uses amino acids which are exclusively of the "left-handed" form.

Who created God?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question

[dd_8630]

I don't mean this unkindly, but have you studied evolution seriously? There are six types of evolution. Micro-evolution is the only one scientifically proven. It involves variation, and even speciation, within a "kind". That is, you start with a fly, you end with a slightly different fly. It has nothing to do with the type of organism being discussed.

Macro-evolution is a change from one "kind" to another. That is, you start with a fly and end with a playpus. That is speculative theory at best.

Yes, I have studied evolution.

Macro-evolution, as you describe it, assumes that one species (I refuse to use the Biblically-heavy 'kind') collectively changes into another. This is not so. For example, modern primates evolved simultaneously from a proto-primate that would still be here if the pressures that caused primate evolution in the first place hadn't cause it to go extinct.

I have to ask, have you studied evolution outside of the Sunday School Classroom?

If you are talking micro-evolution, which can occasionally include crossing of what modern science calls "species" lines, but which is characterized by remaining within the same "kind", then you're right. It is scientific. (Here is an example of kind: if you were shown four pictures, a dog, a coyote, a wolf, and a banana, would you be able to identify which is not like the others?)

However, if you're talking macro-evolution, the evolution necessary, for instance, for simple eukaryote to become a dog, this has NEVER been proven, and does not conform at all to the Scientific Method, as it is not observable or testable.

I want to point out that micro- and macro- evolution are not actual scientific terminology, just phrases anti-evolutionists like to ascribe. Secondly, A dog is a eukaryote.

Your version of macro-evolution seems be one species evolving into an entierly new taxonomical Domain. The time needed for this occur is such that we only have THREE known domains. Of course this is untestable; how do you test history? Ignoring the fossil record and geological record and historical record and X record.

And almost two millenia before Darwin, in a time when ALL non-Romans were considered uncivilized, the apostle Paul wrote that God had made all the nations (people groups) of the earth of one blood, and therefore loved and would accept all in Jesus Christ.

In a time when slavery formed the backbone of the Roman civilization and was certainly considered the norm, Paul wrote to a believer in Christ to receive his escaped slave back, not as a servant but as a "brother dearly beloved".

In a time when Jews had for centuries hated Samaritans with a passion so that they would not even eat out of the same dishes with them, Jesus spoke to a Samaritan WOMAN and offered her Living Water... eternal life.

Either Christianity was fabricated by some very unique people, somehow not influenced by their cultures' prejudices, or Someone greater than them, greater than Darwin, was telling the truth, and calling all the people He had made, from every tongue and every kindred, to become His children.

So a man wrote about another man in a prejudice and ignorant time of people who broke the norm? Culture develops because of people who look at thier culture (usually after seeing another, as Paul had) and see flaws in it. Further, why is it that you only give two options? Perhaps there was a man called Jesus, who did say what he said in the Bible. Jesus is an amazing philosopher and I respect him. However, just because he is a revolutionary, does not make him (the son of) God.

Exactly. If we are merely an accident of genetic mutation, then there is NO inherant morality above that which we choose to impose upon ourselves. We are purposeless, and as such might as well do as we please.

Equating our being here as chance with a lack of inherent morality is flawed. We are inherently moral, evident in that all cultures seek self-preservation (few condone outright murder, many outlaw theft). Our sense of collective morality comes from our evolved (and, to an extent, honed) instincts that have allowed us to successfully reproduce for millions of years. Of course, if you are talking about spritual morality or the consequences that might arise if we choose to break our instictual morality, then you are right. There are no ultimate consequences. But since Religion is the virtual sole cause of war, prejudice, famine, and poverty in the world (Catholics admonishment of condoms has led to the AIDS pandemic; Christian interpritation of 'The Mark of Cain' led to spiritual proof of non-caucasian inferiority and eventual enslavement, etc (I apologize for my lack of examples outside Christianity; I simply cannot think of any atm)) I don't see how you can use this line of argument.

Even a "Wiccan" should be able to understand that logic.

The first cause is God.

God does not go to the trouble of explaing His obvious existence.

I always find it amusing that a non-believer wants to come to a Christian forum and try and "evangelize us" with their ''faith based" religious beliefs.

"Wicca" does not have a stand on universal, biological, or any other origins. There are references that everything stems from the Goddess, but this is talk of the spirit, of the mind, and of the Magicks we yield, not of the physical.

I come to these forums to understand why people don't believe in evolution. To me, it is incredibly accurate, and is evident all around. So, I choose to see if people have found flaws I havn't. And where better to find non-evolutionists that a Christian forum? Also, since when have I tried to convert you? Evangelise you? Espouse my religious beliefs?

Edited June 22, 2006 by dd_8630

[Rober H]

Evolution or God's Word

Dave Hunt

http://www.thebereancall.org/Newsletter/html/1997/feb97.php

"In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins, a leading evolutionist, calls biology "the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."13 Indeed! One cell, the smallest living unit, could have 100,000 molecules and 10,000 intricately interrelated chemical reactions going on at one time. Cells couldn't arise by chance! Dawkins admits that every cell contains in its nucleus "a digitally coded database larger...than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together."14 You can't even imagine the odds against chance creating a 30-volume encyclopedia! That's for one cell

[dd_8630]

Evolution or God's Word

Dave Hunt

http://www.thebereancall.org/Newsletter/html/1997/feb97.php

"In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins, a leading evolutionist, calls biology "the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Indeed! One cell, the smallest living unit, could have 100,000 molecules and 10,000 intricately interrelated chemical reactions going on at one time. Cells couldn't arise by chance! Dawkins admits that every cell contains in its nucleus "a digitally coded database larger...than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together." You can't even imagine the odds against chance creating a 30-volume encyclopedia! That's for one cell

[Rober H]

I don't believe that you are here to learn why some people reject evolution. I believe you are here to try and sell something.

That is what I believe.

You say life can happen by luck. You can't prove that so you accept it by faith. I am getting very bored...

You are here to sell evolutionary theory as a fact. Cut and dry plain and simple...

You have not been able to do that so don't feel like the "lone ranger". No one here is buying what you are selling.

[dd_8630]

I don't believe that you are here to learn why some people reject evolution. I believe you are here to try and sell something.

That is what I believe.

You say life can happen by luck. You can't prove that so you accept it by faith. I am getting very bored...

You are here to sell evolutionary theory as a fact. Cut and dry plain and simple...

You have not been able to do that so don't feel like the "lone ranger". No one here is buying what you are selling.

I beg your pardon? I am a 17yo student in merry olde England. I have nothing to 'sell'. Why would I want to convert you? What would it gain me? I am here to learn. I like to learn. It is what I do. I am having fun debating with intellectuals of a different cultural background and belief system to me; it shows me how I can better myself.

However, I do not enjoy being attacked by people like you. I do not enjoy being belittled. And I do not enjoy you going all paparazzi on me and assuming you know every little secret agenda I have. Next you'll be telling me that its because I'm gay, or because I'm Wiccan, or because I'm rigourous and don't take things on faith. I want to learn about new concepts, simply because I don't know them. I am learning about Communism because I don't know anything about it other than the stigma it recieved in the Cold War. I am studying Russian because it is a language that isn't as common here as French, German etc, but isn't so complex that it'd be a waste of time learning, like Arabic or Japanese.

So please, don't attack me because I am interested in your beliefs. I argue here because I want to find out why you believe what you believe, and debate about points I don't yet understand or accept.

[Nero's Fiddle]

Yes, I have studied evolution.

Macro-evolution, as you describe it, assumes that one species (I refuse to use the Biblically-heavy 'kind') collectively changes into another. This is not so.

I have to ask, have you studied evolution outside of the Sunday School Classroom?

Actually, the examples I used of flies and platypi, etc, were intentionally simple: I was attempting to infuse humor to remind you that I have nothing against you personally and am not "angry" with you.

As to whether I have studied evolution "outside of the Sunday School Classroom": .

I have only been a Christian for two and a half years; most of my life was spent in unquestioning belief of evolution.

I want to point out that micro- and macro- evolution are not actual scientific terminology, just phrases anti-evolutionists like to ascribe.

They do, however, demonstrate differences in what we mean so that we do not waste time using examples of variation within a kind to defend broader portions of evolution. In that regard, they are valuable as tools, not merely semantical.

Secondly, A dog is a eukaryote.

Yes, but no one would argue that it is a SIMPLE eukaryote, which is what I said. Perhaps I should have said "single-celled eukaryotic organism".

Your version of macro-evolution seems be one species evolving into an entierly new taxonomical Domain.

Again, I was being purposefully simple for the sake of levity. I understand the tenets of evolution; I simply don't believe them.

Further, why is it that you only give two options? Perhaps there was a man called Jesus, who did say what he said in the Bible. Jesus is an amazing philosopher and I respect him.

I'm sure you have heard this before, but if you believe He said what He said in the Bible, then He cannot merely be a good and wise teacher. He made claims which demand attention. If He was not what He claimed to be, He was a liar or a crazy person. How then could He be a great teacher?

Some respect, calling Somebody a liar.

We are inherently moral, evident in that all cultures seek self-preservation (few condone outright murder, many outlaw theft). Our sense of collective morality comes from our evolved (and, to an extent, honed) instincts that have allowed us to successfully reproduce for millions of years.

How does this explain those who suffer loss or even death on a moral (I didn't even say religious) basis?

Of course, if you are talking about spritual morality or the consequences that might arise if we choose to break our instinctual morality, then you are right. There are no ultimate consequences.

I would be interested to hear how you explain the existance of such idea systems then. Before you say it is for the sake of benefitting the continuation of the species, please consider the comments you made about religion supposedly being the sole cause of so many decidedly detrimental issues?

If instinct were the basis of morality, would we not all have the same morals?

Catholics admonishment of condoms has led to the AIDS pandemic

Really? I thought immoral sex did that. (P.S. If evolution is true, there is really no such thing, except that which is genetically disadventageous, such as in-breeding. Let loose the paedophiles, so long as the female is old enough to bear children! Wait, our MORALITY finds that despicable...)

[Nero's Fiddle]

I am studying Russian because it is a language that isn't as common here as French, German etc

Sprechen Sie Deutsch auch? Ich bin Amerikanerin, aber studierte Deutsch ins Gymnasium.

=

(Do you speak German as well? I am an American, but studied German in High School.)

[dd_8630]

I'm sure you have heard this before, but if you believe He said what He said in the Bible, then He cannot merely be a good and wise teacher. He made claims which demand attention. If He was not what He claimed to be, He was a liar or a crazy person. How then could He be a great teacher?

Some respect, calling Somebody a liar.

I respect him and most of what he said. But I do not believe his claims of divinity. They may be true, but I do not accept them.

How does this explain those who suffer loss or even death on a moral (I didn't even say religious) basis?

We are not perfect, nor are out instincts particularily suited for a modern climate. Religion has yet to be adapted for, given its penchance for martyrdom.

I would be interested to hear how you explain the existance of such idea systems then. Before you say it is for the sake of benefitting the continuation of the species, please consider the comments you made about religion supposedly being the sole cause of so many decidedly detrimental issues?

If instinct were the basis of morality, would we not all have the same morals?

Idea systems arise because they are beneficial, as you pointed out, albiet in a converse manner. Religion is bad when taken to the extremes, where human suffering is held below religious adherance. We are pattern-seeking mammals; we see pattern in the world, we want to know why it exists. The only explination available to proto-civilisations was the supernatural. The evolution of religion and writing then lead to codified dogmas which, when strictly followed, may cause the strife we see. But they were initially a way of explaining the unknown, giving reason to our existence.

Really? I thought immoral sex did that. (P.S. If evolution is true, there is really no such thing, except that which is genetically disadventageous, such as in-breeding. Let loose the paedophiles, so long as the female is old enough to bear children! Wait, our MORALITY finds that despicable...)

Nope, catholic law.

Paedophilia is genetically disadvantageous because it is harmful to the society, to the childs psyche, and to the childs physical body. We are sociological mammals, and mating rituals such as coming-of-age and a parental development before reproduction have proven benefial; indeed, if they had not proven so, then paedophilia would not be dispised!

As a side note, what happens if we let loose the paedophiles, ultimately? What does it matter if we go to Heaven or Hell? What does it matter if the Bible is literally true? Why do anything, if anything we do has no meaningful use?

Sprechen Sie Deutsch auch? Ich bin Amerikanerin, aber studierte Deutsch ins Gymnasium.

=

(Do you speak German as well? I am an American, but studied German in High School.)

Нет, я говорю по-русский. Вы говорите немецко язык очень хорошо!

Edited June 22, 2006 by dd_8630