Irrefutable Proof of Evolution

[PostmodernProphet]

The Bible shows an Earth that is less then 10,000 years old. That has been disproven, (at least to me). I'm not speaking for all Christians or Jews here, as they can draw their own cornclusions.

I disagree....no where in scriptures does it discuss how much time passed between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3......

[hjmick]

Irrefutable proof of evolution? I don't need proof, irrefutable or otherwise. I have faith in evolution...

[OldMercsRule]

I disagree....no where in scriptures does it discuss how much time passed between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3......

Some see it one way........ some see it another.

Not an important detail or worth a debate, (at least to me).

I'm not sooo fond of some of the stories in the old book and don't take them literally anyhooooooo.

Always had trouble with 800 year old human beings n' such, butt that is me and those details are not significant.

I accept the likelyhood of a 4.5 billion year age of earth give or take and I believe in Christ.

The last detail is the only important one in my book.

Respectfully, JR

[OldMercsRule]

Irrefutable proof of evolution? I don't need proof, irrefutable or otherwise. I have faith in evolution...

Now there is a good honest straight shootin' feller!!!!!

[PostmodernProphet]

Some see it one way........ some see it another.

Not an important detail or worth a debate, (at least to me).

I'm not sooo fond of some of the stories in the old book and don't take them literally anyhooooooo.

Always had trouble with 800 year old human beings n' such, butt that is me and those details are not significant.

I accept the likelyhood of a 4.5 billion year age of earth give or take and I believe in Christ.

The last detail is the only important one in my book.

Respectfully, JR

my particular corner of Christianity considers itself amillennial and acreational....basically, we accept any spin one wants to apply to both ends of the creational time line.....

[OldMercsRule]

my particular corner of Christianity considers itself amillennial and acreational....basically, we accept any spin one wants to apply to both ends of the creational time line.....

Not sure of what "acreational" means and I guess amillennial is an end times philosophy relating to flexibility about the timing and duration of Christ's return.

I was raised Luthern butt fell away as an agnostic during college.

I became "born again" a few years later and my hard core Christian buds like to refer to me as a "cafeteria Christian".

I luv cosmology and science and view much of the bible, (especially the old book), as allegory and open to subjective interpretation.

Sounds like I would relate to yer "particular corner" better then I do with most of my hard core literal Christian buds, (some of who luv to debate the 10,000 year age of Earth they claim they can support from their view of what they think the bible states).

[PostmodernProphet]

close......just as someone who is a-moral does not adhere to any particular standards of morality, someone who is a-millennial doesn't hold to any particular end times interpretation and someone who is a-creational doesn't hold to any particular beginning times interpretation....I believe in the beginning God created everything and at the end, Jesus will be coming back....beyond that, I don't sweat the details......

[OldMercsRule]

close......just as someone who is a-moral does not adhere to any particular standards of morality, someone who is a-millennial doesn't hold to any particular end times interpretation and someone who is a-creational doesn't hold to any particular beginning times interpretation....I believe in the beginning God created everything and at the end, Jesus will be coming back....beyond that, I don't sweat the details......

Sounds like a good discription of my philosophy. I do view Jesus as the same as God or the Holly Ghost, (three aspects of the same entity).

[Little Dragon]

or it shows that an intelligent designer continued to use a working template....the fact of DNA is no more proof of your claims than it is of mine....

This is where Occam's Razor slices the throat of I.D. It makes more sense, especially from a scientific standpoint, that there is a natural explanation like evolutionary divergence of species than to posit something magical, unnecessary and even harder to explain and for which there isn't a shred of evidence, only subjective feelings and religious dogma.

Science has universally reached a consensus on common descent because the process of evolution makes the testable prediction that speciation/divergence will occur (which has been seen on smaller scales) and we also have evidence that this happened in the distant geological past. The fossil record shows the simplest life forms at the bottom layers of rock and they get increasingly complex as you get higher up in the layers. The fossils found also show species transitioning. The fossil evidence is actually plentiful and quite obviously shows transition between species, regardless of how hard creationists try to sweep it all under the rug. There have even been transitional fossils found showing critical changes which led to our modern species. Whale, bird, snakes etc. Other pieces of evidence for common descent come from DNA sequencing.

"Comparison of the DNA sequences allows organisms to be grouped by sequence similarity, and the resulting phylogenetic trees are typically congruent with traditional taxonomy, and are often used to strengthen or correct taxonomic classifications. Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to be used to correct erroneous assumptions in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons.[15] Genetic sequence evidence thus allows inference and quantification of genetic relatedness between humans and other apes.[16][17] The sequence of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene, a vital gene encoding a part of the ribosome, was used to find the broad phylogenetic relationships between all extant life. The analysis, originally done by Carl Woese, resulted in the three-domain system, arguing for two major splits in the early evolution of life. The first split led to modern Bacteria and the subsequent split led to modern Archaea and Eukaryote."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidenc...DNA_sequencing

If I.D. was really scientific theory material, I'm pretty sure plenty of scientists would take it seriously, after all not all of them are atheists and believe in a creator. I.D is and will always be religion, plain and simple. I'm sorry that gets under your and Murky's skin so much, but that doesn't change the reality.

Why not just be honest and admit you believe in your faith, and not science. After all religious faith by definition doesn't require evidence. So why try to forcefully stuff science into religious faith or stuff religious faith into science? You're trying to force a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't fit, it'll never work, so why waste energy trying?

I personally think that the strong objection to evolution comes from a deep fear that common descent would prove god doesn't exist. Some people can believe in god and evolution, some find the two completely irreconcileable. In all the years I was a believer, I never had a problem with evolution. I just figured it was god's way of doing things. I guess I believed in more of a deistic type god. I'd like to add that the reason I'm an atheist now actually has nothing to do with my acceptance of evolution or common descent, but rather other factors like finding out my spiritual "guru" or whatever you'd call it was lying and that there's no real evidence for paranormal or spiritual things and simply thinking about it objectively (which wasn't easy to do at first but it got easier) and realizing it makes no sense and there's no real reason to believe in any of it. I guess I just outgrew my clinging to comforting and fun fantasies and became more interested in knowing what's actually true: making the distinction between what we feel should be versus what really is. I'd rather know the discomforting truth than believe in a comforting lie.

But as far as evolution and common descent, what about it is so bad and objectionable? I think it's pretty awesome that all life on this planet is connected. There's something deeply "spiritual" about that in my opinion. There are different ways of looking at things. Creationists look at common descent as a bad, evil thing. Others just look at it neutrally as the way things are. And it's not like you came directly from a bacterium, you came direction from other humans, who came directly from our most recent ancestor who came from it's most recent ancestor and so on. And even if we sprang up magically and instantaniously from bacteria.....WHO CARES?! What matters is that we are here and we are who and what we are. What changes? Whether or not we magically were poofed into existence by a god or came from single celled organisms makes no difference in what we are now: human.

I find it odd that creationists think it's acceptable to believe everything magically appeared out of thin air from a magical being that has no explanation for it's existence and has never been seen or shown to even exist at all, yet they find it impossible to think anything evolved from simpler forms over billions of years through natural laws that are known to exist. We know the mechanism behind the latter, there are no proposed and testable mechanisms for the former. That alone makes I.D. unscientific. Here are a few questions I.D. should be able to answer:

Why did life get more complex as time passed? Why not just start out with complex forms?

Why do the previous organisms all throughout geologic history no longer exist? Did god decide to start over a lot?

Why do fossils show transitions between species, with each earlier form effectively becoming extinct to give way to the next?

Another difference I'd like to point out between religion and science, because it's a critical difference, is that science is extremely self critical and objective. It needs to be because bias gets in the way of finding out the truth. Religion is as biased as it gets, it's completely unobjective. It assumes a priori there must be a god who created everything and all the other religious dogma that goes along with it, using faith alone and not evidence. Evidence must be forced to fit into it or rejected. With science, the opposite is true. Scientists examine the evidence and draw conclusions from it, rather than making a conclusion or assumption and trying to force the evidence to fit and ignoring any that doesn't. This is what I.D. does. It assumes a creator must have designed everything, tries to make the evidence fit and attempts to explain away or ignore evidence that goes against it.

[PostmodernProphet]

This is where Occam's Razor slices the throat of I.D. It makes more sense, especially from a scientific standpoint, that there is a natural explanation like evolutionary divergence of species than to posit something magical, unnecessary and even harder to explain and for which there isn't a shred of evidence, only subjective feelings and religious dogma.

so, if you walk into a room which contains a table.....on the table is a deck of cards....the cards have been dealt into a Royal Flush.....also there is a note....it reads "I dealt this hand of cards"......you apply Occam's Razor and conclude that there was no author of the note, no dealer of cards, the cards not only dealt themselves but shaped themselves out of isolate molecules while simultaneously self generating the rules of poker, the table and the room......brilliant move.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Why not just be honest and admit you believe in your faith, and not science.

because I believe in science and intelligent design.....why aren't you honest enough to admit that your beliefs are no less a matter of faith.....

Why do fossils show transitions between species, with each earlier form effectively becoming extinct to give way to the next?

quite simply, they don't......we've already covered that......your faith provides the assumption of transition....

[OldMercsRule]

This is where Occam's Razor slices the throat of I.D. It makes more sense, especially from a scientific

(Scientific religious faithful standpoint)

standpoint, that there is a natural explanation like evolutionary divergence of species than to posit something magical, unnecessary and even harder to explain

Only to closed minded true believers of the religion of evolution.

and for which there isn't a shred of evidence,

The magnificent work with extreme and delicate balance and complexity is the evidence (if yer eyes werked).

only subjective feelings and religious dogma.

Nope......Objective observations!!!!

Science has universally reached a consensus

Ever heard Algore the buffoon say that same chit?????

on common descent

There is no cornsensus about common descent

because the process of evolution makes the testable prediction that speciation/divergence will occur (which has been seen on smaller scales) and we also have evidence that this happened in the distant geological past.

HORSE POOP!!!!! Religious dreams n' lots of wishful thinkin'.

The fossil record shows the simplest life forms at the bottom layers of rock and they get increasingly complex as you get higher up in the layers.

Horse poop. Yer makin' chit up. The Cambrian explosion was over 500 million years ago with very complex organisms.

The fossils found also show species transitioning.

Horse poop. There's a band in Boise called "FAT CHANCE" with a hit single " NO F..KING WAY"!!!

The fossil evidence is actually plentiful and quite obviously shows transition between species, regardless of how hard creationists try to sweep it all under the rug.

Pieces of bone that true believers make chit up about and then revise once more complete fossils of the same organism are found.

There have even been transitional fossils found showing critical changes which led to our modern species. Whale, bird, snakes etc. Other pieces of evidence for common descent come from DNA sequencing.

Only in yer dreams.

"Comparison of the DNA sequences allows organisms to be grouped by sequence similarity, and the resulting phylogenetic trees are typically congruent with traditional taxonomy, and are often used to strengthen or correct taxonomic classifications. Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to be used to correct erroneous assumptions in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons.[15] Genetic sequence evidence thus allows inference and quantification of genetic relatedness between humans and other apes.[16][17] The sequence of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene, a vital gene encoding a part of the ribosome, was used to find the broad phylogenetic relationships between all extant life. The analysis, originally done by Carl Woese, resulted in the three-domain system, arguing for two major splits in the early evolution of life. The first split led to modern Bacteria and the subsequent split led to modern Archaea and Eukaryote."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidenc...DNA_sequencing

N' Horses n' cows came from bacteria. Yasureyabetcha.

If I.D. was really scientific theory material, I'm pretty sure plenty of scientists would take it seriously, after all not all of them are atheists and believe in a creator. I.D is and will always be religion, plain and simple. I'm sorry that gets under your and Murky's skin so much, but that doesn't change the reality.

Doesn't bother me. I admit my faith, yer the one that gets huffy.

Why not just be honest and admit you believe in your faith, and not science.

I believe in my faith in Jesus Christ, and I accept many of the findings of science, I'm not a "true believer" in science, so I keep a critical eye and an open brain cell.

After all religious faith by definition doesn't require evidence.

That's true, and you accept evolution in that manner.

So why try to forcefully stuff science into religious faith or stuff religious faith into science?

You should ask yerself that question. I accept my faith, and I feel the Big Bang theory nicely fits the way an Intelligent Designer would make things happen, as does DNA in living cells.

You're trying to force a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't fit, it'll never work, so why waste energy trying?

Yer the one who is doing that....look in the mirror

I personally think that the strong objection to evolution comes from a deep fear that common descent would prove god doesn't exist.

Speak for yerself. If common descent were to be proven, (which it has not), an omnipotent God could use any method to create and advance life.

Some people can believe in god and evolution, some find the two completely irreconcileable.

The parts of evolution theory that do fit observations do fit with an omnipotent God and create no problems for my faith in Jesus Christ. Yer the one with the tight undies.

In all the years I was a believer, I never had a problem with evolution. I just figured it was god's way of doing things. I guess I believed in more of a deistic type god. I'd like to add that the reason I'm an atheist now actually has nothing to do with my acceptance of evolution or common descent, but rather other factors like finding out my spiritual "guru" or whatever you'd call it was lying and that there's no real evidence for paranormal or spiritual things and simply thinking about it objectively (which wasn't easy to do at first but it got easier) and realizing it makes no sense and there's no real reason to believe in any of it.

Doesn't sound like yer faith in Allah, Zues, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever god you tentatively worshipped was ever very strong. However, yer blind faith in evolution is very strong.

I guess I just outgrew my clinging to comforting and fun fantasies

Not hardly ya just replaced Allah with evolution.

and became more interested in knowing what's actually true: making the distinction between what we feel should be versus what really is. I'd rather know the discomforting truth than believe in a comforting lie.

Ya got some of whatever yer smokin'? Would it hurt me one functional brain cell if I tried some????

But as far as evolution and common descent, what about it is so bad and objectionable?

It is not objectionable at all it is just yer religion that you draw comfort from. Real simple. Takes onle one engaged brain cell ta understand.

I think it's pretty awesome that all life on this planet is connected. There's something deeply "spiritual" about that in my opinion.

I'm glad yer happy with yer religion.

There are different ways of looking at things.

No chit Sherlock

Creationists look at common descent as a bad, evil thing.

How would you know that? You a mind reader?

Others just look at it neutrally as the way things are.

True believers may look at it that way.

And it's not like you came directly from a bacterium, you came direction from other humans, who came directly from our most recent ancestor who came from it's most recent ancestor and so on.

That maybe yer faith, butt that's not what happened.

And even if we sprang up magically and instantaniously from bacteria.....WHO CARES?!

Those who are curious care.

What matters is that we are here and we are who and what we are. What changes? Whether or not we magically were poofed into existence by a god or came from single celled organisms makes no difference in what we are now: human.

Then why do ya get sooooo huffy about it?

I find it odd that creationists think it's acceptable to believe everything magically appeared out of thin air

There was no "thin air" when the Big Bang happened; Einstein.

from a magical being that has no explanation for it's existence and has never been seen

Christ was seen, and Moses saw a burning bush.

or shown to even exist at all, yet they find it impossible to think anything evolved from simpler forms over billions of years through natural laws that are known to exist.

Who said it was impossible? I said it has not been proven nor logical to have happened that way as there is zero evidence, and complexity favors ID.

We know the mechanism behind the latter,

Horse poop.

there are no proposed and testable mechanisms for the former. That alone makes I.D. unscientific.

How do ya test fer "dark matter". The work shows ID.

Here are a few questions I.D. should be able to answer:

Why did life get more complex as time passed? Why not just start out with complex forms?

Why do the previous organisms all throughout geologic history no longer exist? Did god decide to start over a lot?

Unknown, butt seems like a logical way to do things.

Why do fossils show transitions between species, with each earlier form effectively becoming extinct to give way to the next?

They don't. That is yer religion talking.

Another difference I'd like to point out between religion and science, because it's a critical difference, is that science is extremely self critical and objective.

That maybe true of most science not evolution or man made global warming.

It needs to be because bias gets in the way of finding out the truth. Religion is as biased as it gets, it's completely unobjective.

Good discription of AGW and evolution.

It assumes a priori there must be a god who created everything and all the other religious dogma that goes along with it, using faith alone and not evidence.

True, butt observations fit which is evidence.

Evidence must be forced to fit into it or rejected. With science, the opposite is true. Scientists examine the evidence and draw conclusions from it, rather than making a conclusion or assumption and trying to force the evidence to fit and ignoring any that doesn't.

That is what AGW and evolution does.

This is what I.D. does. It assumes a creator must have designed everything, tries to make the evidence fit and attempts to explain away or ignore evidence that goes against it.

No evidence goes against it.

[PostmodernProphet]

ignore evidence that goes against it.

do you believe there is evidence against it?.....I would love an example......

[Little Dragon]

so, if you walk into a room which contains a table.....on the table is a deck of cards....the cards have been dealt into a Royal Flush.....also there is a note....it reads "I dealt this hand of cards"......you apply Occam's Razor and conclude that there was no author of the note, no dealer of cards, the cards not only dealt themselves but shaped themselves out of isolate molecules while simultaneously self generating the rules of poker, the table and the room......brilliant move.....

This is a bad comparison. You're trying to compare man made objects with natural objects and processes.

[Little Dragon]

because I believe in science and intelligent design.....why aren't you honest enough to admit that your beliefs are no less a matter of faith.....



quite simply, they don't......we've already covered that......your faith provides the assumption of transition....

I don't need faith. I follow the evidence. And yes the fossils do show transition. Small changes between closely related species. All you need to do is look at the fossil record.