Darwinism Discussion

[HammerStone]

i thank you for responding. I have been pretty much ignored up until now. I dont see what your point is. everything we do comes down to observations. Mathmatics, cooking, music, etc.. if a observation does change then It is potentionally wrong (depending on the change). those wrong observations are weeded out rather quickly. evolution has been around for about 150 years now. and even today we continue to find evidence that reenforces it. Am I understanding what you are saying? If my response seems off of your point please elaborate.
Time isn't always the best authority for truth. My point is simply this: observing something happening is quite different from theorizing about something that happened yet cannot be observed. We can observation that there is some degree of evolution going on in the form of natural selection. However, we've taken this and literally run with it to explain processes which are many times more complex.For example you cited a few common things such as cooking, mathematics, and music. What element is present in each of these things when they are created? A cook, a mathematician of some degree, and a composer; in other words, a designer. Number two, all of these things are done at the time and can easily be observed. For example, I can take two pencils in front of me, and add two more pencils and observe that I now have four. If I were to cook, I take a recipe or create my own to cook and so on.Science is derived from the Latin "scientia" literally meaning knowledge; ie: to know something. You can theorize, hypothesize, and postulate, but that doesn't mean you know it no matter how you change it around.I realize people will argue until they're blue in the face on that one, but it won't change me and won't change the way it is.
evolution is a biological explanation and in no way tries to explain the orgin of life. once life is created then evolution takes over. prior to the existance of life comes down to "Abiogenisis" which i dont know much about. as far as i understand there isnt an explanation for it.
Right, no one's discounting that thing's don't evolve to a degree. That's been observed and we know it. Abiogenesis and the related terms are a whole new ballgame and that's what this thread is about. Regardless of the scientific term or not - which seems to change every so often - the idea is that man and the entire biodiverse world that we have evolved from nonliving matter entirely on its own.That takes a whole lot more faith than just believing in God.As for the Woo-Suk (S. Korean scientist) it's just one of many that goes to show you what's going on. Follow the money trail for just a minute. There were several other scientists indicted and overall the case involved hundreds of millions of embezzled money. The fiasco was marked by government involvement and there were still supporters years later holding rallies saying he was right. The guy himself continues to maintain that it wasn't his fault and that someone else messed up his work.Good article through Wikipedia in this case for a little list:[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct[/url]What gets me is that, just like journalists, they're supposed to regulate themselves yet when it comes to government we clatter on about how we need watchdog groups and checks and balances.

 

[kelphis]

(SwampFox;6845)
Time isn't always the best authority for truth.
that wasnt my point. Its not important for me to argue with you on this cause I agree.(SwampFox;6845)
My point is simply this: observing something happening is quite different from theorizing about something that happened yet cannot be observed. We can observation that there is some degree of evolution going on in the form of natural selection. However, we've taken this and literally run with it to explain processes which are many times more complex.
well it appears to me that you have the same idea of observation as many other religious people have. You literally want to observe and actually see evolution occuring. you want to see a species of reptile give birth to offspring that has feathers instead of scales. then you want to physically see that offspring give birth to something with feathers and a beak. then you want to see wings be formed on the next generation. that kind of thinking is a little obsurd only because there isnt any other kind of event where other forms of evidence don't effect the conclusion of what actually happened. we dont need to see a murderer killing someone in order to convict them and sentence them. we dont need to see the cause of a house catching on fire in order to determine that it was a short in the electrical line. yet time and time again it is argued that evolution needs to be physically seen. The evindece that we have is the same stuff that we use to do the things mentioned above. If you are being accused of murder and DNA evidence is introduced there is almost a 100% chance that you did it. we all know that. there is DNA evidence for evolution. for example:up until 2 years ago there was a problem with the belief that humans evolved from an ape-like species. and that the great apes(orangs (sp?), bonobos, and chimps) are our closest "cousins" to that species.The main problem was that all the great apes had 48 chromosomes and we only have 46. It is unlikely that our ansector had 48 and we lost a set of chromosomes because the loss of an entire chromosome would be fatal. so that only leaves 2 other possible predictions. (1) that our ancestor had 48 and there was a fusion of 2 chromosomes which made us only have 46, or..., (2) our ancestor had 46 and a gene was copied making 48 for our great ape cousins. this was such a problem that if science couldnt find the evidence then we did not ascend from apes. 2 years ago the human genome was mapped and scientists discovered that human chromosome #2 was the fussion of 2 ape chromosomes. this is the same type of evidence that we use to determine paternity tests, solve crimes and fight hereditary diseases. (SwampFox;6845)
For example you cited a few common things such as cooking, mathematics, and music. What element is present in each of these things when they are created? A cook, a mathematician of some degree, and a composer; in other words, a designer. Number two, all of these things are done at the time and can easily be observed. For example, I can take two pencils in front of me, and add two more pencils and observe that I now have four. If I were to cook, I take a recipe or create my own to cook and so on.
okay, then I am correct and you physically want to observe evolution.(SwampFox;6845)
Science is derived from the Latin "scientia" literally meaning knowledge; ie: to know something. You can theorize, hypothesize, and postulate, but that doesn't mean you know it no matter how you change it around.
thats just symantics. that doesnt mean anything.(SwampFox;6845)
I realize people will argue until they're blue in the face on that one, but it won't change me and won't change the way it is.
Im not suggesting that you do. you can do whatever you want. I just really want to understand how you can think the way you do.(SwampFox;6845)
Right, no one's discounting that thing's don't evolve to a degree. That's been observed and we know it.
that really interests me that you say that. You are almost there. It only requires a small amount more to get you to the theory of evolution. I mean evolution basically states that small random changes over time are selected by nature to survive and over time that results in a big change. In other words:small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change = big change(SwampFox;6845)
That takes a whole lot more faith than just believing in God.
I hear this alot too and I really dont understand where this claim comes from. there is 0 evidence for creationism. all I have to do is introduce 1 single piece of evidence and my evidence out weighs yours and by the actualy definition of faith that means that evolution would require less faith.why do you think this?(SwampFox;6845)
As for the Woo-Suk (S. Korean scientist) it's just one of many that goes to show you what's going on. Follow the money trail for just a minute. There were several other scientists indicted and overall the case involved hundreds of millions of embezzled money. The fiasco was marked by government involvement and there were still supporters years later holding rallies saying he was right. The guy himself continues to maintain that it wasn't his fault and that someone else messed up his work.
i really dont think you want to get into a conversation about money or hoaxes. in all honesty that is like charles manson accusing OJ simpson of being a bad person. hundreds of millions. HA. the church takes in billions. probably in the 100's of billions. and there are so many hoaxes in religion that Im sure you would immediatly jump to claim that those people dont represent your beliefs. I mean just look a benny Hinn. Its estimated that that guy pulls in 250 million a year. and claims that god allows him to heal people. (SwampFox;6845)
Good article through Wikipedia in this case for a little list:[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct[/url]What gets me is that, just like journalists, they're supposed to regulate themselves yet when it comes to government we clatter on about how we need watchdog groups and checks and balances.
i dont deny that there are hoaxes. as a said before. almost all hoaxes are quickly dismissed. almost always by scientists themselves. the rest of the hoaxes are weeded out over time. A good con artist would jump in and make some money and run. science doesnt work instantaniously. By the time its dismissed the hoaxers have already gotten what they wanted. all of the things that you mention can be shown time and time again for all religions...Includeing yours. So i really dont think that talking about the misconduct of a few is a good argument.

 

[theatheistreview]

"Abiogenesis and the related terms are a whole new ballgame and that's what this thread is about"Actually this thread is called Darwinism Discussion. The origins of life are not the debate, its what gets us from the origional microbes to the complex life of today that is the toipc.Think about this, the only evidence for evolution occuring to some degree is natural variation between generations. After that it's just logical that some level of evolution will occur."Right, no one's discounting that thing's don't evolve to a degree"Ok so what are you arguing. Intelligent Design or Creation Science? That god fills in the gaps or that he created life in species? What examples do you have of ID? Someone mentioned blowholes, but my understanding is that there is fossil evidence of the nostrils moving back onto the head

 

[HammerStone]

"Abiogenesis and the related terms are a whole new ballgame and that's what this thread is about"Actually this thread is called Darwinism Discussion.
As the original thread starter, I think I am aware of the topic. I appreciate your help in the matter, but I know what I meant and most others who have visited this topic and posted seemed to know as well. It's quite simply really; we've taken the observations of Darwin and run with them to help create our hypothesis that removes God from the equation. That's what this topic is about. I would know, I started it.
What examples do you have of ID?
There's really no purpose engaging in the age old debate here. This forum is here for Christians to learn and those who want to ask questions. Clearly, this is not a place friendly to discussion that is bent on denying God in any way it can.
really dont think you want to get into a conversation about money or hoaxes. in all honesty that is like charles manson accusing OJ simpson of being a bad person. hundreds of millions. HA. the church takes in billions. probably in the 100's of billions. and there are so many hoaxes in religion that Im sure you would immediatly jump to claim that those people dont represent your beliefs. I mean just look a benny Hinn. Its estimated that that guy pulls in 250 million a year. and claims that god allows him to heal people.
Talk about guilt by association, eh? I appreciate your judgment on what I support and what I believe, but the funny thing is you know absolutely nothing about me to make that call. I have no interest in arguing, this kind of debate serves no purpose for either side. I'm closing this thread because it serves no purpose. I can see we've had a few come here to argue and that's not what this site is about. There are plenty of other locals for arguing. I have my answers and everyone is open to their own. However, no one can "prove" there isn't a God so good luck finding that shred of evidence because that's the only way you'll ever disprove it. You'll be searching quite a while I do believe.