nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 36:
Line 36: + + + + + + + + +
→Any Suggestions: Presumptions are not evidence.
:: I think the definition of evolution as a term, and natural selection as a theory, has changed very little since Darwin theorized the history of life. The agents which we believe natural selection to work on have changed, and as such, natural selection can be observed now on a microscopic level in genes, and this has led to changes in exactly how it is viewed. To the extent that bacteria can be viewed to evolve even in the [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html lab]. I very much resent being labelled under the terms of ''evolutionists'' without note though. Yes, it's true that I accept hard fact, and that scientific evidence has not been in any effective way refuted in this field, however, that does not mean that I deny the existence of God, nor does it necessarily mean that I absolutely reject the Bible. The most convincing argument I have ever heard for the existence of God can be put into one statement, that any act of creation must involve the creation of a being with a history that never took [http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/aa2-cr.htm place.] Essentially, it goes that Adam was created as a full grown adult, this gives the appearance of having been a child, and a baby, with a naval or bellybutton, giving evidence of Adam having had a father before him. Given that Adam was the first person created, this appearance of history is false, but is still evident from research. This means that we can make accurate scientific or geological observations of a deep and distant past, which only in truth existed inside the mind of God. So the evolution of genes, and even speculatively the Big Bang, may be said to be the working of God's mind before we were born into physical existence.
:: I think the definition of evolution as a term, and natural selection as a theory, has changed very little since Darwin theorized the history of life. The agents which we believe natural selection to work on have changed, and as such, natural selection can be observed now on a microscopic level in genes, and this has led to changes in exactly how it is viewed. To the extent that bacteria can be viewed to evolve even in the [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html lab]. I very much resent being labelled under the terms of ''evolutionists'' without note though. Yes, it's true that I accept hard fact, and that scientific evidence has not been in any effective way refuted in this field, however, that does not mean that I deny the existence of God, nor does it necessarily mean that I absolutely reject the Bible. The most convincing argument I have ever heard for the existence of God can be put into one statement, that any act of creation must involve the creation of a being with a history that never took [http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/aa2-cr.htm place.] Essentially, it goes that Adam was created as a full grown adult, this gives the appearance of having been a child, and a baby, with a naval or bellybutton, giving evidence of Adam having had a father before him. Given that Adam was the first person created, this appearance of history is false, but is still evident from research. This means that we can make accurate scientific or geological observations of a deep and distant past, which only in truth existed inside the mind of God. So the evolution of genes, and even speculatively the Big Bang, may be said to be the working of God's mind before we were born into physical existence.
:: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 08:01, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:: [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 08:01, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::: I don't see any reason that the Kangaroos would have trouble crossing the land. As for them crossing the water, you haven't explained why some small creatures that you say can cross water could do so but not young kangaroos.
::: As far as the rabbits in the outback are concerned, you ''may'' be right, but note that Australia built some very long fences ''in the outback'' to limit the spread of the rabbits. Yes, there probably was human activity there, but it would have been minimal. Cane toads have shown no evidence of evolution of the sort that creationists object to. What the news report is referring to is ''adaptation'' within the genetic variability of the cane toads.
::: I don't follow your point about missing fossils; it seems to be just special pleading to dismiss my objections to your earlier claim.
::: Lenski's research, even if it is genuinely new genetic information produced by chance, is actually an argument ''against'' goo-to-you evolution, as it shows extremely ''little'' evolution occurs over a large number of generations.
::: Scientific evidence may not have been refuted, but evolution is mostly philosophy and story telling, with only a small amount of scientific evidence, most of which is also compatible with creation.
::: You may not deny the existence of a god, or of parts of the Bible, but if you believe evolution, you must of necessity reject those foundational parts of the Bible that are inconsistent with it, such as the creation of the world in six days, the creation being "very good" (without fault), and death occurring only after the appearance of mankind.
::: If the argument you mention is the most convincing argument you've heard for the existence of God, then it would appear that you've heard very little on the subject. The argument is false anyway, in proposing a history for Adam. Being created as a fully-grown man only gives the appearance of him having been a child if you reject that God could create him as an adult (and that therefore the only way an adult could come about is by being a child first). As a belly button is a scar (not a design feature) of an event that never occurred, Adam would not have had one, so this "evidence" is invented. You are confusing an appearance of adulthood with an appearance of ''aging'', and the processes that go along with that. That is, Adam would have appeared as an adult, true, but without any evidence of having grown older or of a past life, such as scars, wrinkles, callouses, or the like, that would be evidence of actual events happening. A machine such as a television, fresh off the factory floor, is ''complete'', but without scratches, worn parts, etc. which come with ''aging''. Adam would have been like that. The analogy with cosmology and genetics follows: Any evidence of actual events happening indicates that those things happened; they were not fake history created by God. But similarly, evidence that is not actually of events happening, but which ''assume'' that a history was required, is not ''evidence'', but ''presumption''. For the same reason, creationists generally reject the idea that God created starlight in transit, because that starlight carries information about events happening, such as stars going nova, that would never have happened if the starlight was created in transit. But similarly, they reject claims about ages based on presumptions that things started off in particular states when it is just as valid to claim that God created them that way.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:54, 5 December 2008 (EST)