Macro Evolutionists...

[PostmodernProphet]

Im sorry I didn't realize dmp was the inventor of the "design requires a designer" statement. How neat is that! Hypocrites...


You two are so dense. How many time must I state that evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life. It's how creatures change over time, that is all.

and are you the only person in the world?.......I am aware that evolution doesn't explain the origins of life.....I know for a fact that the average layman is not aware of that, being the product of an American public school education......I am specifically aware that you attribute more to "evolution" than science does because you for some strange reason, believe I deny it......that could only be if you believe evolution teaches something it doesn't, as I don't deny anything that evolution teaches.......

meanwhile.....my previous statement is true, and dmp is correct.......you are not capable of writing an original statement that defends your claims about evolution.......if you believe you are, here is your opportunity to prove us wrong.......pasting nothing, give me a full paragraph of at least three sentences that shows, scientifically, that either of our arguments are incorrect........

[fj1200]

Do you think so? I haven't read the book, but the premises listed at the link would be at odds with several parts of the Bible's version of genesis...Eve made from Adam's rib,e.g.

Yes. I don't recall anything related to Adam and Eve but that part isn't science. How are they at odds?

[pete311]

meanwhile.....my previous statement is true, and dmp is correct.......you are not capable of writing an original statement that defends your claims about evolution.......if you believe you are, here is your opportunity to prove us wrong.......pasting nothing, give me a full paragraph of at least three sentences that shows, scientifically, that either of our arguments are incorrect........

Of course nothing I say is original. I am not a biologist. I don't study in a lab and make findings. I am a web designer who happens to choose to inform himself on the subject enough to realize it's effectiveness. It's effectiveness is something you cannot deny. Out of the tens of thousands of scientists working day and night there has yet to be any experiment or observation (published in a peer reviewed journal) that disproves the theory. That is a powerful indication it works.

Do you think so? I haven't read the book, but the premises listed at the link would be at odds with several parts of the Bible's version of genesis...Eve made from Adam's rib,e.g.

It's interesting to note the book is categorized as "Religious Studies", not as any science.

[Missileman]

Yes. I don't recall anything related to Adam and Eve but that part isn't science. How are they at odds?

"that part isn't science" ?

Please clarify that statement.

Of course nothing I say is original. I am not a biologist. I don't study in a lab and make findings. I am a web designer who happens to choose to inform himself on the subject enough to realize it's effectiveness. It's effectiveness is something you cannot deny. Out of the tens of thousands of scientists working day and night there has yet to be any experiment or observation (published in a peer reviewed journal) that disproves the theory. That is a powerful indication it works.

It's hilarious isn't it? A contention that if you can't come up with an original, previously unwritten proof that 2+2=4 then they are free to conclude that it =3.

[fj1200]

It's interesting to note the book is categorized as "Religious Studies", not as any science.

Who said it was science?

"that part isn't science" ?

Please clarify that statement.

Why would you expect God taking Adam's rib and creating Eve would be an example of science?

[Missileman]

Who said it was science?



Why would you expect God taking Adam's rib and creating Eve would be an example of science?

Since Collins believes man is descended from an ape-like ancestor, one can conclude he doesn't believe the biblical account of God making Eve from Adam's rib.

BTW, I don't expect anything from the Bible would be an example of science, hence the reason I asked for clarification.

All in all, I'm guessing that Collins is engaging in a little "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". Since it's become impossible to disprove evolution, the religious are left with no other option than to give God credit for inventing it.

[darin]

And impossible to PROVE macro evolution; hence yours and others massive amounts of faith; your hopes hinging on its truthfulness, because the alternative scares the hell out of you.

[Missileman]

And impossible to PROVE macro evolution; hence yours and others massive amounts of faith; your hopes hinging on its truthfulness, because the alternative scares the hell out of you.

Faith is belief when there's no evidence to substantiate it. The MOUNTAIN of evidence available that substantiates evolution makes it no more a matter of faith to believe it than to believe that 2+2=4. As for fear, it resides solely in your camp, not mine.

[PostmodernProphet]

Of course nothing I say is original. I am not a biologist. I don't study in a lab and make findings. I am a web designer who happens to choose to inform himself on the subject enough to realize it's effectiveness. It's effectiveness is something you cannot deny. Out of the tens of thousands of scientists working day and night there has yet to be any experiment or observation (published in a peer reviewed journal) that disproves the theory. That is a powerful indication it works.

paragraph......three sentences......unfortunately, it didn't address the issue we were talking about........sorry.......

[revelarts]

Faith is belief when there's no evidence to substantiate it. The MOUNTAIN of evidence available that substantiates evolution makes it no more a matter of faith to believe it than to believe that 2+2=4....

Can you give me 1, example of Macro evolution like a fish to reptile or a mammal to bird or a no eye to an eye. evidence not conjecture. nothing like "well this looks like this so it IS from this ...until we find out different. "
out of that Mountain of evidence. something scientific like SURE transition forms, a scientific - chemical, molecular or biological process for major positive mutations, not "here's my theory this seems to fit ignore the gaps so it true".


your 2+3=4 analogy doesn't work,
divining scientific processes from the distant past based on portions of dead plants and animals and current processes is more like murder mystery than simple addition, a cold case in fact. one can line up the sparse evidence to appear to have found THE killer but if you dismiss conflicting evidence because you think you've found the murderer, your a poor lazy and self deceived detective.

[fj1200]

Since Collins believes man is descended from an ape-like ancestor, one can conclude he doesn't believe the biblical account of God making Eve from Adam's rib.

BTW, I don't expect anything from the Bible would be an example of science, hence the reason I asked for clarification.

All in all, I'm guessing that Collins is engaging in a little "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". Since it's become impossible to disprove evolution, the religious are left with no other option than to give God credit for inventing it.

One can conclude a lot of things when we haven't read the book or don't recall specifically because it's been so long in my case. The following isn't by Collins but is from his foundations site:

...Science asserts that evolved brain capacity and function are part of what set Homo sapiens apart from previous hominids. It is this same capacity and function that make relationship possible and, particularly in the creation account, covenantal relationships between humans and God and between humans and each other (i.e., marriage). An advantage of this interpretation is that God’s natural processes marvelously work without the need for any ancestral or genetic fabrication. Also, you’d finally be able to explain where it is that Cain found his wife (answer: from the other humans walking the earth east of Eden; Genesis 4:16-17).


However, this view would require a reinterpretation of words like “formed” and “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Genesis 2:7 KJV). Can we use “formed” and “breathed” to mean created through the long and continuous history of biological evolution (as were the other living creatures in Genesis 1)? If so, then perhaps “the Lord God formed the man” could be read emphasizing the novelty and uniqueness which humans inhabit.


Similarly, the “breath of life” would not signify simply oxygenated animation (surely Genesis isn’t simply speaking in that sense), but that breath which set humans apart as inspired by God (the Hebrew word for breath here is different than the word used for oxygen-intake by living creatures as a whole).

...

http://biologos.org/blog/adam-and-ev...al-or-literary

Why wouldn't a religious person acknowledge that God "invented" it? If new ways are understood and it becomes easier to understand the background of the bible as well then it's perfectly natural. One thing that Collins refers to is believing in the "God of the gaps," if you believe that God is responsible for the missing links, for example, and then a scientific discovery is made explaining the link then where are you with your belief. You would have to question the god that you created because you put him in a box. I also think that people rely too much on modern translations that may misinterpret original words/phrases. A literal creationist would say that "day" equals 24 hours where the original wording has "day" meaning an era that could be millions of years in the making.

Besides, if anyone gets wrapped in this creation/evolution conundrum then they are completely missing the point anyway IMO.

[PostmodernProphet]

Can you give me 1, example of Macro evolution like a fish to reptile or a mammal to bird or a no eye to an eye. evidence not conjecture. nothing like "well this looks like this so it IS from this ...until we find out different. "
out of that Mountain of evidence. something scientific like SURE transition forms, a scientific - chemical, molecular or biological process for major positive mutations, not "here's my theory this seems to fit ignore the gaps so it true".


your 2+3=4 analogy doesn't work,
divining scientific processes from the distant past based on portions of dead plants and animals and current processes is more like murder mystery than simple addition, a cold case in fact. one can line up the sparse evidence to appear to have found THE killer but if you dismiss conflicting evidence because you think you've found the murderer, your a poor lazy and self deceived detective.

sponges turn into liberal humans......for obvious reasons.......

[Missileman]

Can you give me 1, example of Macro evolution like a fish to reptile or a mammal to bird or a no eye to an eye. evidence not conjecture. nothing like "well this looks like this so it IS from this ...until we find out different. "
out of that Mountain of evidence. something scientific like SURE transition forms, a scientific - chemical, molecular or biological process for major positive mutations, not "here's my theory this seems to fit ignore the gaps so it true".

Macro-evolution is not a different process than micro-evolution, but the accumulation of vast amounts of micro-evolutionary changes. The theory of evolution does not claim that a mammal mutated into a bird. Transitions would occur over millions of years, not in a single pregnancy.

Edited to add a link to a transitional species, not that you won't pooh pooh it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/07...ossil-reveals/

your 2+3=4 analogy doesn't work,
divining scientific processes from the distant past based on portions of dead plants and animals and current processes is more like murder mystery than simple addition, a cold case in fact. one can line up the sparse evidence to appear to have found THE killer but if you dismiss conflicting evidence because you think you've found the murderer, your a poor lazy and self deceived detective.

If you have ANY scientifically verifiable evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, post it. I'll personally guarantee you receive a million dollars if they don't present you a check with your Nobel prize.

[logroller]

If you have ANY scientifically verifiable evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, post it. I'll personally guarantee you receive a million dollars if they don't present you a check with your Nobel prize.

Start a new religion or write a new version of the Bible-- you'll probably make more.

[logroller]

Can you give me 1, example of Macro evolution like a fish to reptile

tetrapods

or a mammal to bird or a no eye to an eye. evidence not conjecture. nothing like "well this looks like this so it IS from this ...until we find out different. "
out of that Mountain of evidence. something scientific like SURE transition forms, a scientific - chemical, molecular or biological process for major positive mutations, not "here's my theory this seems to fit ignore the gaps so it true".

Birds didn't descend form mammals...so, that would be impossible; but that's not really the issue, which is, the mountains of evidence contain literally billions of mutations over millions of years. Most of which are long gone, the odds of finding every detail are slim to none, so of course some gaps remain, but the current theory is supported by the evidence which exists and scientists actually seek to disprove their hypothesis, not prove them. Its like going down the road looking for signs you are on the right path; sometimes there are signs the path is the right one, but every step of the way isn't paved, so one must also look for signs they are going the wrong direction. Then you go back. It's a slow process, but what took millions of years to evolve, we have discovered much in a relatively short time.

your 2+3=4 analogy doesn't work,
divining scientific processes from the distant past based on portions of dead plants and animals and current processes is more like murder mystery than simple addition, a cold case in fact. one can line up the sparse evidence to appear to have found THE killer but if you dismiss conflicting evidence because you think you've found the murderer, your a poor lazy and self deceived detective.

What is your issue with evolution? Is it the scientific process, because evidence is incomplete, that we came from monkeys, or do you just see it as an affront to religion?

B/C in my heart I believe in God, but my mind is forced to question such things as Light to humans in 6 days-- as best i understand, this ability to question and reason is what is meant by man being created in God's image. If He is all-knowing and omnipotent, why bother giving us these abilities and the emplacement of fossil records which aren't congruent with intelligent design-- He just toying with our inquisitive nature? Why?????????