# Did science just break the theory of humans evolving from apes



## j_seph (Nov 14, 2012)

http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=816597
That's how I read it


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 14, 2012)

That molecule appeared about the same time aliens came to Earth. They turned apes into humans and used them to mine Gold.


----------



## hummdaddy (Nov 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> That molecule appeared about the same time aliens came to Earth. They turned apes into humans and used them to mine Gold.



as has been my theory


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 14, 2012)

Wow!
Those researchers researched up a lot of stuff.

Including a gene only found in humans.


----------



## hummdaddy (Nov 14, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Wow!
> Those researchers researched up a lot of stuff.
> 
> Including a gene only found in humans.



your bible make's up some doosie's,of man made stories...their stuff is proven  ,is your's


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 14, 2012)

hummdaddy said:


> your bible make's up some doosie's,of man made stories...their stuff is proven  ,is your's




Their stuff is proven??????????????????????????


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Nov 14, 2012)

Proverbs 14:33 sums this up quite well.


----------



## JFS (Nov 14, 2012)

j_seph said:


> That's how I read it



Maybe you need some reading lessons


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 15, 2012)

"This new molecule sprang from nowhere at a time..."

"this gene emerged fully functional out of... "

Sounds like these boys are in the right quadrant.


----------



## formula1 (Nov 15, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Their stuff is proven??????????????????????????



X2! 

I'd rather be a fool for Christ!


----------



## dawg2 (Nov 15, 2012)

I wonder how long it will be before they "plug" that gene into  groilla/chimp cells and create a chimera?  ...probably already have.


----------



## StriperAddict (Nov 15, 2012)

No wonder I have cravings for a bananna sundaes


----------



## DCHunter (Nov 15, 2012)

Supports my theory that God created us through evolution.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Nov 15, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> That molecule appeared about the same time aliens came to Earth. They turned apes into humans and used them to mine Gold.



Ancient Alien Theroy, pretty interesting stuff!


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 15, 2012)

Based on the direction this country and our world is heading, I think it is safe to conclude that this gene is recessive.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 15, 2012)

The article offers several possible conclusions that can be drawn based on some preconceived (read, "scientific") ideas. 

It seems that rather than recognizing the possibility that humans are also unique (like the newly studied gene) in the way they originated, apart from lower forms of life, they exhibit a biased tunnel-vision to any concepts within the area of creationism.

It still remains. You can't arrive at spiritual truth by examining the physical. The best science can do is point us in the direction of God. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.


----------



## David Parker (Nov 15, 2012)

The article just provides more info for scrutiny.  If you didn't believe it to begin with, you won't now either.  If you believed it before, you still do now.  

@evolution bashers, is it the fact that you cannot see a gene with the naked eye that makes it suspect or do you just consider wizardry a more plausible explanation?  

@Darwin.  FTW!


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 15, 2012)

Jeremy Wade said:


> @evolution bashers, is it the fact that you cannot see a gene with the naked eye that makes it suspect or do you just consider wizardry a more plausible explanation?


Straw man.  

Do you think nature somehow formed the human gene?



> @Darwin.  FTW!



What does FTW mean?


----------



## David Parker (Nov 15, 2012)

For the Win = ftw

ALiens obviously dropped the human gene by accident.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 15, 2012)

Jeremy Wade said:


> For the Win = ftw


Darwin himself criticized his own theory.



> ALiens obviously dropped the human gene by accident.


Do you want to have a serious conversation about this subject?


----------



## hummdaddy (Nov 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Darwin himself criticized his own theory.
> 
> 
> Do you want to have a serious conversation about this subject?



i have had a serious conversation about this...i have not ever seen a god or heard him talk to me though...


----------



## TTom (Nov 15, 2012)

You must have missed the first sentence entirely to reach your title question.

"Researchers have discovered a new gene they say helps explain how humans evolved from chimpanzees."


----------



## hummdaddy (Nov 15, 2012)

TTom said:


> You must have missed the first sentence entirely to reach your title question.
> 
> "Researchers have discovered a new gene they say helps explain how humans evolved from chimpanzees."



they change the bible's word's around to suit them too


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Do you think nature somehow formed the human gene?



Do you think nature somehow formed the AIDS virus or made a form of drug resistant influnezia? Do you think nature only lets short Dandelions grow in my yard?


----------



## hummdaddy (Nov 15, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Do you think nature somehow formed the AIDS virus or made a form of drug resistant influnezia? Do you think nature only lets short Dandelions grow in my yard?



it's god's plan that only your yard has dwarf dandilions


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 15, 2012)

He should have known future events would appear like my lawnmower and provided a more limber tall Dandelion species that could hear the mower and duck!
In reality I wish his plan was that I didn't have any. I'm a Christian but I happen to believe in "Natural Selection".


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 15, 2012)

I have a lot of respect for scientists.
But not concerning things that happened 5,482 billion years ago.
I just don't believe they can "know" the things they believe they know.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 15, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I have a lot of respect for scientists.
> But not concerning things that happened 5,482 billion years ago.
> I just don't believe they can "know" the things they believe they know.



But can you see the changes, mutations, & adaptations in plants and animals in your lifetime to admit that nature/science/circumstance/fate/God/all-of the above has caused something to happen over time?

Just as we don't want to use the word "evolution" can't you see a process called "Natural Selection" in your life time? I can remember a time before Aids & Herpes. Were they on the Ark or did something mutate into these species. Were their any mules on the ark or high-yielding corn hybrids? Have you ever studied the origin of corn? I don't see how anyone can see what an ear of corn looks like now and what it once was and not understand the process of "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest". If God is part of the process,"Amen". God has the final word on those pesky Dandelions in my yard and cockroaches.

Just as a Rainbow is a sign the Earth will never be flooded again, can't it also be explained scientifically as the light/prism  effect? Why don't Christians protest that teaching in school?


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 15, 2012)

I know that you're aware that I can't possible know the answers to those questions, but I got some thoughts on it.

I suspect mankind is responsible for manipulating much of the problems on earth.  Cancer could very well be one of them.  Birth defects another.  We develop drugs that when taken cause a high number of people to commit suicide.
And on and on.

I think we can probably blame the pesky weeds on Adam and Eve.  There probably weren't any weeds in the Garden.


----------



## Mako22 (Nov 16, 2012)

The driving force behind evolution is not science as most think and that is why Christians should not bother much with trying to disprove it scientifically. 

What drives evolution is un-belief in God. If in ones mind there is no way that God can exist then there is no creator. If there is no creator then the only logical answer is evolution, big bang theory, etc. The way to fight evolution is by sharing the Gospel message with folks and the way you do that is with the most powerful weapon on planet earth; the bible.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 16, 2012)

Woodsman69 said:


> The driving force behind evolution is not science as most think and that is why Christians should not bother much with trying to disprove it scientifically.
> 
> What drives evolution is un-belief in God. If in ones mind there is no way that God can exist then there is no creator. If there is no creator then the only logical answer is evolution, big bang theory, etc. The way to fight evolution is by sharing the Gospel message with folks and the way you do that is with the most powerful weapon on planet earth; the bible.



So if I as a Christian, try to explain rainbows, manna, The Ark of the Covenant, parting of the Red Sea., and other Biblical events scientifically it will be considered an un-belief in God?
If I explain a man is cured by medicine instead of the "Hand of God" or if a man commits suicide of his own free will, it is an un-belief in God?


----------



## JFS (Nov 16, 2012)

Woodsman69 said:


> The way to fight evolution is by sharing the Gospel message with folks and the way you do that is with the most powerful weapon on planet earth; the bible.



I'm all for that, game on.  

Make it either or, none of this squishy evolution guided by god compromise stuff.  Because in the end there is no way the superstitious world view of bronze age goat herders will hold up, and once it finally collapses in the dust bin with the rest of the ancient tribal folklore we can finally move on to deal with important issues without having to worry about such nonsense.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 19, 2012)

> Researchers have discovered a new gene they say helps explain how humans evolved from chimpanzees.
> 
> The gene, called miR-941, appears to have played a crucial role in human brain development and could shed light on how we learned to use tools and language, according to scientists.
> 
> ...



Taken directly from the link provided in the OP, it seems incongruous to offer the first statement above as true and then put forth the last statement with the same expectation. 

If the gene is unique to humans, it seems far more reasonable to conclude that the unique nature excludes the possibility of humans evolving from other mammals, even primates. Is it any more likely that the gene "developed" from some fundamentally different material or that it has been consistently present in humans, starting at a specific point, i.e. the instant of human creation. 

The real question is whether the gene developed over time or spontaneously appeared. The Big Bang theory (which, by the way, has much supporting it as being both possible and plausible) is fully dependent on spontaneity.  Essentially, something wasn't and then suddenly something was.

The first statement is nothing more than speculation based on a preconceived bias. The information advanced in the last statement quoted, as truth, neither supports nor denies any particular manner of origin.


----------



## JFS (Nov 19, 2012)

gtparts said:


> If the gene is unique to humans, it seems far more reasonable to conclude that the unique nature excludes the possibility of humans evolving from other mammals, even primates.



On what are you basing that conclusion?  

The formation of new genes is part of evolution: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835


----------



## gtparts (Nov 19, 2012)

JFS said:


> On what are you basing that conclusion?
> 
> The formation of new genes is part of evolution: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835



Genes can mutate, be altered by random outside influence or intentional manipulation, or experience degradation during replication. The article, however, does not even attempt to follow any chain of evidence from a lower form to a higher form of life, i.e. human. The gene is found in one species and not in the others examined. It merely states the gene is unique, found only in humans. It speaks nothing by which one could reasonably assume that the gene originated from another gene form found in other mammals or primates. Making that leap of nonsense is spuriousness in the extreme.


----------



## JFS (Nov 19, 2012)

gtparts said:


> The article, however, does not even attempt to follow any chain of evidence from a lower form to a higher form of life, i.e. human. ..... It speaks nothing by which one could reasonably assume that the gene originated from another gene form found in other mammals or primates. Making that leap of nonsense is spuriousness in the extreme.



Let me get this straight, we know there is a mechanism for evolution of new genes from exisiting ones yet "it speaks nothing by which one could reasonably assume that the gene originated from another gene"


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 20, 2012)

Men can look at two genes and imagine a sequence of events by which one could derive from the other.  Using that information as a basis for investigation is good science.  Claiming that to be knowledge that there is an active mechanism by which new genes develop from existing ones is what gives science a bad name.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 20, 2012)

JFS said:


> Let me get this straight, we know there is a mechanism for evolution of new genes from exisiting ones yet "it speaks nothing by which one could reasonably assume that the gene originated from another gene"



Really? You can not differentiate between "can" and "did"? Just because it "can" does not mean that evolution is the only means by which this unique gene could come into existence. Science has yet to prove that the evolutionary process is the sole source of all genetic material. The unique organism and the unique gene may have originated simultaneously, without precedent. As with the highly touted Big Bang Theory, if you buy into that "nothing, then something" scenario (on such a huge scale), certainly you would concede the idea of "no gene, then unique human gene" explanation of our existence.


----------



## JFS (Nov 20, 2012)

gtparts said:


> Really? You can not differentiate between "can" and "did"? Just because it "can" does not mean that evolution is the only means by which this unique gene could come into existence.



You are right of course.  It could have been generated by the result of any number of events that I can't disprove, such as interbreeding with Leprochans or space aliens too I guess.  But the original premise that somehow this disproves evolution is clearly false, as was your statement that there is "nothing by which one could reasonably assume that the gene originated from another gene form."  The mechanism by which new genes are created isn't unknown.  As to any given genetic mutation that occured millions of years ago how would one "prove" anything?   I think the best approach is to look for the explantion that doesn't include magic fairies, reading chicken entrails or relying on biblical interpretation.  And since we are not identical to chimps I would expect some genetic difference, and apparently there are several genes that are unique to humans:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090901172832.htm  The new article merely discusses the discovered effect of one.


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Nov 26, 2012)

Jeremy Wade said:


> @Darwin.  FTW!





stringmusic said:


> What does FTW mean?





Jeremy Wade said:


> For the Win = ftw



Hahahaha never thought I'd see Call of Duty, or COD, language on here!


----------



## polkhunt (Nov 27, 2012)

I must have missed something in the article. How does finding a gene in humans that chimps do not have prove that we evolved from them. What I want to see is the chimp that is evolving, the one that is halfway between that will be some good proof.


----------



## BT Charlie (Nov 29, 2012)

From goo to you by way of the zoo? I heard a scientist say that the earth is 5 billion years and six days old.  I said that is very precise. How do you figure? He said he heard about it six days earlier.


----------



## bsanders (Dec 8, 2012)

If evolution was a"real" thing. Explain to me why when a monkey is born today, when he dies he will still be a monkey. If evolution were true, that monkey would not have been born a monkey. There would be no more monkeys. If humans evolved from monkeys why can you still go to Africa and still find monkeys? I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution.......just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Israel (Dec 8, 2012)

If we "think" better than our so called first ancestors did...then the assumption is that we are "progressing" toward something.
This is where evolution leaves me...for whether it is admitted or not openly, I believe there remains a presumption of progress...and that with a very strong judgment of value to it.
In simpler terms...perhaps..."smartness is better."
But how can there be any judgment of "better"...without an objective Judge?

And I have begun to see...smartness ain't all the snake oil salesman would tell us it's cracked up to be.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 8, 2012)

Israel said:


> If we "think" better than our so called first ancestors did...then the assumption is that we are "progressing" toward something.
> This is where evolution leaves me...for whether it is admitted or not openly, I believe there remains a presumption of progress...and that with a very strong judgment of value to it.
> In simpler terms...perhaps..."smartness is better."
> But how can there be any judgment of "better"...without an objective Judge?
> ...



Humans are better problem solvers compared to other  creatures, compared to apes and add that like insects and mussels there are few areas we cannot occupy, it is hard to see that we could get better than that--but wait for the gates of Mars and 250 thousand yrs...there is no telling what auntie Millie will be knitting with... I don't believe evolution theory presumes "better"...it just presumes change...due to environment change...which will choose traits...and therefore ......


----------



## bsanders (Dec 8, 2012)

but you can't tell me that evolution just......stopped. if it were true, like i said there would be no more monkeys. Am i not right? you believers of evolution go along with the hogwash that we evolved from monkeys. why do we still have monkeys then? you don't have an answer for it. if it were real, we, humans that evolved from monkeys because they couldn't make it in their environment, would not still be humans. we would have evolved to something greater......right? if creatures evolved then why does man have an account for so many of them and not once noting that they saw a monkey that started talking or a shark that grew 4 legs so it could start eating stuff on land. If it were true species would not be on the endangered list, because of course they would evolve into something that would better suit its life preservance. And i don't expect an answer because you don't have an answer. there is none. And I'm sure that you believers of evolution have had this thought crossed your mind.


----------



## JFS (Dec 8, 2012)

bsanders said:


> why do we still have monkeys then?



I don't even know where to begin to address your misunderstandings about natural selection, but fortunately the answer to your terribly misguided question is available without even leaving Woody's:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=724461


----------



## bsanders (Dec 8, 2012)

Whatever the species, why have things stopped evolving? And the "slide show" is a theory. so no proof. and like i said no answer can be given, even you said it yourself, that you don't know where to begin, which is another way of saying that you don't know what to say because there is nothing to say. and showing me a post about something that has no proof is not an answer, just more babbling.


----------



## bsanders (Dec 8, 2012)

If natural selection were true just the same as evolution, why do we have endangered species? And which is it? "natural selection" or "evolution"?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 8, 2012)

bsanders said:


> If natural selection were true just the same as evolution, why do we have endangered species? And which is it? "natural selection" or "evolution"?



It's whatever you want to call it. Why do we still have White tail deer since we now have Key deer? Why do we still have fish with eye sight since we now have blind cave fish? Why do we now have the AIDS virus and the simian virus it evolved from? Why do we have new varieties of pecans, corn, and other crops and still have the crops they came from? Why did corn start out as a tiny little grain/ear not much bigger than today's grass grains? I noticed we still have grass with tiny grains.(Bahia?). We now have drug resistant diseases and believe it or not the non resistant varieties are still here. 
Please look at this picture of corn and tell me you can't see a difference from an ear of corn from the original grain that we still have. I am a Christian and I can see the difference. True this isn't another species. The grain of grass didn't turn into an artichoke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zea_(genus)


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 8, 2012)

bsanders said:


> If natural selection were true just the same as evolution, why do we have endangered species? And which is it? "natural selection" or "evolution"?



Some of the endangered species is a result of man; pollution & loss of habitat. Some of the endangered species come from natural events. Loss of habitat from floods & volcanoes. Other events such as  the ice age, natural global warming, sea level changes, etc. can cause endangered species and  even extinction of species.
What does this have to to with Natural Selection?


----------



## ted_BSR (Dec 9, 2012)

TTom said:


> You must have missed the first sentence entirely to reach your title question.
> 
> "Researchers have discovered a new gene they say helps explain how humans evolved from chimpanzees."



Apparently, we diverged from chimpanzees. We did NOT evolve from them. This graphic proves it, undeniably.


----------



## Israel (Dec 9, 2012)

If this is self indulgent, simply consider the source.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 9, 2012)

Israel said:


> If this is self indulgent, simply consider the source.



How about I almost what to send you a cheque this sunday morning. How about if for athiest your Mr. Rogers rattle box is your God and your bible, bits and pieces of this and that.

How about if creation is about something totally different than what we fence with? And the rattle box and the intelect are only things it acts apon. 

By the way I would get on a plane with altemetor ripped out... and I've been to many a bible believing church where the pastor was flying a glider.

My take is that evolution does not defacto deny God--but it denys some folks doctrines for which they use God as a battering ram in order to stroke their vanities.

When I listen to U-tube vids of athiests saying why they believe the way they do...I find they are cooking with usually  just one recipe or the scientific method...but mankind, individuals and societies cook without recipes, they just wig it... Now it could be argued that God is a one recipe diet... and the problem is that mankind, individuals and societies cook without recipes. So science and religion but heads...

Perhaps science is not a one trick poney and religions not restricted to one recipe...because God is not a one recipe God?


----------



## Israel (Dec 9, 2012)

Ha!
If you almost send one...I'll almost cash it!

LOL...yeah...gliders are great...when VFR conditions prevail...and even most powered craft.
But flying blindly...well...you'd be right if you said it takes some kinda faith.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 9, 2012)

Israel said:


> Ha!
> If you almost send one...I'll almost cash it!
> 
> LOL...yeah...gliders are great...when VFR conditions prevail...and even most powered craft.
> But flying blindly...well...you'd be right if you said it takes some kinda faith.



One thing I am learning recently is that  some animals have a sense of fairness and therefore what is right or wrong. So if some animals know instictively what is right and wrong...why can homo erectus deceive itself there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Or that Dick Chaney's politics is the spawn of God. Why does Homo Erectus differ issues of good and evil blindly to Pharoes? Science perhaps has cleaner answers than saints?


----------



## Israel (Dec 9, 2012)

I guess if one pinned their hopes upon there either being...or not being weapons of mass destruction anywhere...then perhaps disappointments would be abundantly available. 
Maybe...that's why they are.
Abundantly available.

Perhaps to be captivated rightly...it may some how involve at least a searching out what the fearing of him who really has power of mass destruction entails as the beginning of wisdom?

I can't decide for anyone what the sign means...only that the one who posted it is true.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 9, 2012)

Israel said:


> I guess if one pinned their hopes upon there either being...or not being weapons of mass destruction anywhere...then perhaps disappointments would be abundantly available.
> Maybe...that's why they are.
> Abundantly available.
> 
> ...





Perhaps... and in the beginning was evolution in God or is God in evolution? When man became self-aware was God created or already there...? The heaven and the earth were already created by the Devine so the good book says. Evolution says mostly the same thing, heaven and earth were created and then man, with the language of a different paradigm. Evolution, creation are we playing at catching our tails...? And so we add athiest and snake handlers to the mix...  Why? Do you think God cares. However...doctrinaires do...on all four sides...
Perhaps...

And this: quote:I can't decide for anyone what the sign means...only that the one who posted it is true

Yep God and the cross is no fiction.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2012)

bsanders said:


> but you can't tell me that evolution just......stopped. if it were true, like i said there would be no more monkeys. Am i not right? you believers of evolution go along with the hogwash that we evolved from monkeys. why do we still have monkeys then? you don't have an answer for it. if it were real, we, humans that evolved from monkeys because they couldn't make it in their environment, would not still be humans. we would have evolved to something greater......right? if creatures evolved then why does man have an account for so many of them and not once noting that they saw a monkey that started talking or a shark that grew 4 legs so it could start eating stuff on land. If it were true species would not be on the endangered list, because of course they would evolve into something that would better suit its life preservance. And i don't expect an answer because you don't have an answer. there is none. And I'm sure that you believers of evolution have had this thought crossed your mind.



Just do yourself a favor and spend 15 minutes researching evolution. You can specify humans if you would like or the questions you seek about monkeys talking. You will be more informed the next time you try to talk about it. I am also sure you will find it interesting and will want to find out more.

Expect answers because there are answers. We cannot help it if you refuse to believe them. Everyone has thought the thoughts you have brought up, some have taken the time to educate themselves and can better understand it. Don't take "our" word for it though, do some research and then come back and tell us if your earlier comments and thoughts are still the same.


----------



## bsanders (Dec 9, 2012)

I'm talking to you guys. i asked a question, and like i said you would not have an answer. the above post is meaning less. its just a bunch of letters put together to tell me that you have no answer to the questions that were asked. THINK about it for a sec. If evolution were thru to the extent that y'all say it is then we would still see the major changes that you folks say went on. And to address what artfulldodger said about endangered species.......you are debunking yourself. What was the main goal or purpose of evolution supposed to be? SURVIVAL.....right? So animals dying off would prove evolution wrong. Or maybe just some things evolve right? Like the stupidity of the human brain. And you can type all the mumbo jumbo about me being informed to your standards, and my refusal to believe them.......you aren't going to punk me, bro.


----------



## Israel (Dec 9, 2012)

gordon 2 said:


> Perhaps... and in the beginning was evolution in God or is God in evolution? When man became self-aware was God created or already there...? The heaven and the earth were already created by the Devine so the good book says. Evolution says mostly the same thing, heaven and earth were created and then man, with the language of a different paradigm. Evolution, creation are we playing at catching our tails...? And so we add athiest and snake handlers to the mix...  Why? Do you think God cares. However...doctrinaires do...on all four sides...
> Perhaps...
> 
> And this: quote:I can't decide for anyone what the sign means...only that the one who posted it is true
> ...



I am not sure about trying to catch our tails...but the implication is pretty funny! 

Maybe in one sense it is a call men hear...to find their origins.

I would guess that in another sense any growth could be called an evolution of sorts...but I am not sure that is veritum dictum proboscum for the scientific/biological evolutionist. 

Maybe growth is determinate for the being...but jumping from being to being looks like everything producing after its own kind might then be sorta suspect. 

(Then again...no doubt even that saying has a world of dispute waiting in the wings to take the stage.)

Whether one sees evolution as a mechanism or a canard probably does, as you say, mean little to God. 

And really all that remains only lives on the determinate side of the cross as He ordains.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 9, 2012)

No one is trying to punk you and I apologize if you think I was. You make a very good point about extinction that I didn't think about before. Using this discussion, i'll now go and research extinction within evolution. Thanks.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2012)

bsanders said:


> I'm talking to you guys. i asked a question, and like i said you would not have an answer. the above post is meaning less. its just a bunch of letters put together to tell me that you have no answer to the questions that were asked. THINK about it for a sec. If evolution were thru to the extent that y'all say it is then we would still see the major changes that you folks say went on. And to address what artfulldodger said about endangered species.......you are debunking yourself. What was the main goal or purpose of evolution supposed to be? SURVIVAL.....right? So animals dying off would prove evolution wrong. Or maybe just some things evolve right? Like the stupidity of the human brain. And you can type all the mumbo jumbo about me being informed to your standards, and my refusal to believe them.......you aren't going to punk me, bro.



That's right, can't punk you...bro.
You should teach what you type, there are very few on this earth with the knowledge you posses.

Taken from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/How_come_there_are_still_monkeys?  ,lets use your logic to solve some of life's other perplexing questions;
If white Americans and white Australians are both descended from Europeans, how come there are still Europeans?
If dogs are domesticated wolves, how come there are still wolves?
If rock and roll came from the blues, how come there is still the blues?
If Israel came from Egypt, how come there is still Egypt?
If Protestants came from Catholics, how come there are still Catholics?
If Christians came from Jews, how come there are still Jews?

From  http://scienceray.com/biology/if-people-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
(Note: this is a very simple explanation designed for children, despite you already blowing the scientific community out of the water with your unanswerable and unchallengeable posts, I am sure you will be able to follow along with this mumbo-jumbo) 



> This is a very basic scientific explanation of evolution designed primarily to help children understand how humans evolved.
> 
> Sometimes people will say that humans evolved from monkeys. This is incorrect, humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans evolved from an ape like creature that no longer exists.
> 
> ...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 9, 2012)

Extinction is actually a common feature of life on earth when viewed over long (e.g. geological) timescales. By some estimates, over 99% of the species that have ever lived have gone extinct. One factor that promotes extinction is the fact that evolution does not produce species that are optimally adapted to their environment, but only better adapted than their local competitors. 
http://biologos.org/blog/death-and-rebirth-the-role-of-extinction-in-evolution

The above is from a website to help Christians like me put science & faith together. If 99% of all species are now extinct, where are the new species coming from?


----------



## JFS (Dec 9, 2012)

bsanders said:


> If evolution were thru to the extent that y'all say it is then we would still see the major changes that you folks say went on. .... So animals dying off would prove evolution wrong. ... you aren't going to punk me, bro.



No one is punking you brother, it's just that you don't seem to understand how evolution works and you are making argments that don't make any sense.  First and foremost your time scale is way off.  Second, there is nothing inconsistent about species dying off, in fact it's part of the whole survival of the fittest mechanism that makes natural selection a force for change.   Really, if you read up and still don't get it come back and we can discuss, but you have been making arguments against total strawmen.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2012)

Trying to keep it simple...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat03.html


> 1. Why do some species survive while others go extinct?
> Extinction is often caused by a change in environmental conditions. When conditions change, some species possess adaptations that allow them to survive and reproduce, while others do not. If the environment changes slowly enough, species will sometimes evolve the necessary adaptations, over many generations. If conditions change more quickly than a species can evolve, however, and if members of that species lack the traits they need to survive in the new environment, the likely result will be extinction.
> 
> 2. Does evolution proceed toward increasing complexity?
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2012)

Evolution is like Day and Night. At high noon it is light out, at 4pm it is still light out but not as bright as it was at noon, at 9pm it is Night and dark and Midnight it is still Night time. At what point did it become dark? Was it an exact moment or a gradual change? Can the exact moment be narrowed down? How many different colored hues are involved? That is how evolution works. Gradual change over thousands, tens of thousands,hundreds of thousands and millions of years.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 9, 2012)

Did you at least look at the chart JFS provided a link to? 
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=724461

No one is trying to persuade you to believe in evolution. Just to research it to back up your stand. You have a right to not believe in evolution. Maybe if you call it "natural selection" it will be easier to grasp.


----------



## bsanders (Dec 9, 2012)

Let me get this right. You guys believe and promote that an organism can be born with its genetic makeup and traits, then have the ability to change his or her genes based upon what they think needs to happen? Tell me specifically how the evolution process happens. All this stuff about millions of years is not a convincing answer guys. And number 6 above is almost to stupid to write and make public. Ok, humans and apes share a common ancestor that gave rise to both. why didn't all of them evolve into human form. Humans have been documenting everything for the past +200 years and not once has something evolved into something else. And bullet head you make no sense what so ever. Rock into blues? Israel from Egypt? Wolves to domesticated dogs? lets go to the latter just for fun. wolf to dachshund.....what would be the benefit of a species going to that? Really. And music is something man created that has no genetic makeup or blood or brain. And egypt and israel are pieces of land that was divided just as the property that you live on was cut apart from another. And about americans and australians, that one should be simple enough that i don't have to explain, if i do for Christmas i should send you a pair of velcro shoes..............jokingly of course.


----------



## bsanders (Dec 9, 2012)

I call it hogwash, you guys brought up natural selection......


----------



## tarrendale (Dec 9, 2012)

I know certain who evolved from monkeys.


----------



## bsanders (Dec 9, 2012)

I knew you would.


----------



## tarrendale (Dec 9, 2012)

Rack ball


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2012)

bsanders said:


> Let me get this right. You guys believe and promote that an organism can be born with its genetic makeup and traits, then have the ability to change his or her genes based upon what they think needs to happen? Tell me specifically how the evolution process happens. All this stuff about millions of years is not a convincing answer guys. And number 6 above is almost to stupid to write and make public. Ok, humans and apes share a common ancestor that gave rise to both. why didn't all of them evolve into human form. Humans have been documenting everything for the past +200 years and not once has something evolved into something else. And bullet head you make no sense what so ever. Rock into blues? Israel from Egypt? Wolves to domesticated dogs? lets go to the latter just for fun. wolf to dachshund.....what would be the benefit of a species going to that? Really. And music is something man created that has no genetic makeup or blood or brain. And egypt and israel are pieces of land that was divided just as the property that you live on was cut apart from another. And about americans and australians, that one should be simple enough that i don't have to explain, if i do for Christmas i should send you a pair of velcro shoes..............jokingly of course.



Are humans now taller on average than they were 200 years ago? Are we taller now than 2000 years ago? What is the avg lifespan of a human now compared to 200 years ago?
Why do humans have different skin color?


----------



## bsanders (Dec 9, 2012)

How many people do we have to compose an average of height on people 2,000 years ago? What data do you have, physical, you can put your hands on proof? And their are more humans now than ever so the average is not the same. You answer questions with questions. You are proving my point for me.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2012)

bsanders said:


> Let me get this right. You guys believe and promote that an organism can be born with its genetic makeup and traits, then have the ability to change his or her genes based upon what they think needs to happen? Tell me specifically how the evolution process happens. All this stuff about millions of years is not a convincing answer guys. And number 6 above is almost to stupid to write and make public. Ok, humans and apes share a common ancestor that gave rise to both. why didn't all of them evolve into human form. Humans have been documenting everything for the past +200 years and not once has something evolved into something else. And bullet head you make no sense what so ever. Rock into blues? Israel from Egypt? Wolves to domesticated dogs? lets go to the latter just for fun. wolf to dachshund.....what would be the benefit of a species going to that? Really. And music is something man created that has no genetic makeup or blood or brain. And egypt and israel are pieces of land that was divided just as the property that you live on was cut apart from another. And about americans and australians, that one should be simple enough that i don't have to explain, if i do for Christmas i should send you a pair of velcro shoes..............jokingly of course.



If adam and eve are our first parents, why don't all humans have the same genes?


----------



## Israel (Dec 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Are humans now taller on average than they were 200 years ago? Are we taller now than 2000 years ago? What is the avg lifespan of a human now compared to 200 years ago?
> Why do humans have different skin color?



Have you ever considered it is tape measures that are evolving and getting shorter?
And calendars, too?

A chihuaha and a great dane can still make pups...and you and Bathsheba could probably start a family.

But there's no way Elsie the cow and Leo the lion are ever gunna have that white picket fenced yard.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2012)

bsanders said:


> How many people do we have to compose an average of height on people 2,000 years ago? What data do you have, physical, you can put your hands on proof? And their are more humans now than ever so the average is not the same. You answer questions with questions. You are proving my point for me.



Skeletal Evidence
look it up


----------



## bsanders (Dec 9, 2012)

A man of wisdom.


----------



## bsanders (Dec 9, 2012)

all you are doing is trying to point me in the direction of something that someone else said. They won't bring up the number of averages on the measurements either. One day you will realize that your beliefs or failure to believe has gotten you into something that can not be extinguished. And that day you will admit that God, Jesus Christ, is the maker of all.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2012)

Israel said:


> Have you ever considered it is tape measures that are evolving and getting shorter?
> And calendars, too?
> 
> A chihuaha and a great dane can still make pups...and you and Bathsheba could probably start a family.
> ...



Please enlighten us as to how long the Great Dane and Chihuahua dogs have been their own breeds and how those breeds came to be. Will you have us believe they each have been on earth since animals were "created"?

Your right about the cow and lion. Evolution has taken care of that.

Since your knowledgeable about these species why can horses and donkeys breed and tigers and lions breed but their offspring is sterile?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2012)

bsanders said:


> all you are doing is trying to point me in the direction of something that someone else said. They won't bring up the number of averages on the measurements either. One day you will realize that your beliefs or failure to believe has gotten you into something that can not be extinguished. And that day you will admit that God, Jesus Christ, is the maker of all.



20 years ago I extinguished those beliefs, that was when I realized who was not the savior and who was not the maker.


----------



## bsanders (Dec 9, 2012)

20 years ago was the time that you were led astray. Just remember this conversation. I will pray that your soul and opinion changes.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2012)

bsanders said:


> 20 years ago was the time that you were led astray. Just remember this conversation. I will pray that your soul and opinion changes.



With everyone praying for me for all these years I should have been a changed man 100 times over. Seems like we are each trying to help one another.


----------



## bsanders (Dec 9, 2012)

But if evolution were true we as humans would not be having these conversations or arguments because we would have all evolved into the same elite being. After all what is the end goal for evolution?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2012)

bsanders said:


> But if evolution were true we as humans would not be having these conversations or arguments because we would have all evolved into the same elite being. After all what is the end goal for evolution?



There is no goal. There is no truth or untruth. Evolution IS. It is survival of the fittest. Evolution is whatever it has come to be up until this minute today. Evolutions goal is not for everything to be human. We are just a small part in a short time span. Evolution has no plan. Evolution is humans figured out how to use tools and fire, if we did not figure it out we most likely would not have survived as a species. This Earth, Nature, Universe has gotten along just fine before us and will continue to long after us.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2012)

bsanders said:


> But if evolution were true we as humans would not be having these conversations or arguments because we would have all evolved into the same elite being. After all what is the end goal for evolution?



If we were all created equal with the start of Adam and Eve, but now are most certainly not all equal elite beings, then what is the goal for creation? Faulty intelligent design? How do we have birth defects? Retardation? Deformities? Still Births? Why are everyone's genetics so different if we all have the same mother and father?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 10, 2012)

Evolution  has no pre-determined course. It has free will.


----------



## Israel (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Please enlighten us as to how long the Great Dane and Chihuahua dogs have been their own breeds and how those breeds came to be. Will you have us believe they each have been on earth since animals were "created"?
> 
> Your right about the cow and lion. Evolution has taken care of that.
> 
> Since your knowledgeable about these species why can horses and donkeys breed and tigers and lions breed but their offspring is sterile?


 
And the large one Adam called Great Dane...and the small one he preferred to call Chihuaha, knowing that some day it would appear in amusing commercials for a fast food chain serving Mexican vittles. 

As to the specifics of meiosis vs. mitosis, haploids and diploids, and viable offspring when gametes are produced and introduced to one another...well, it's been over 30 years since I took genetics, and even then passing the course was not equivalent to being able to teach it.

Google hybrids...and maybe even discover why Adam's manipulation of blueprints, even under the guise of benevolent motives regarding foodstuffs is resulting, and will result, in continuing calamity for himself, and his offspring.

Perhaps the wisest god in the pantheon of the molecular tinkerers demonstrated the pinnacle man can achieve in his attempts to return to Eden by jumping the back fence when he said this:
"Now I am become Shiva, the destroyer of worlds..."


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

Israel said:


> And the large one Adam called Great Dane...and the small one he preferred to call Chihuaha, knowing that some day it would appear in amusing commercials for a fast food chain serving Mexican vittles.
> 
> As to the specifics of meiosis vs. mitosis, haploids and diploids, and viable offspring when gametes are produced and introduced to one another...well, it's been over 30 years since I took genetics, and even then passing the course was not equivalent to being able to teach it.
> 
> ...



Do a refresher course and you'll see why your personal thoughts are not the actual facts.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> There is no truth or untruth.





> Evolution IS. It is survival of the fittest. Evolution is whatever it has come to be up until this minute today. Evolutions goal is not for everything to be human. We are just a small part in a short time span. Evolution has no plan. Evolution is humans figured out how to use tools and fire, if we did not figure it out we most likely would not have survived as a species. This Earth, Nature, Universe has gotten along just fine before us and will continue to long after us.



Is all this true?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Is all this true?



It is what it is. Humans and everything else that are here right now took multiple paths to get here. Along the way many other species didn't make it. You either survive or you don't. Many species lasted much longer than humans have been around, it is just they were able to do it for hundreds of millions of years before hand. Whatever caused their demise may have helped our species to start. Evolution seems to go as Nature dictates.


----------



## Israel (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Do a refresher course and you'll see why your personal thoughts are not the actual facts.



You mean "Yo quiero taco bell" was not the actual voice of the perrito?


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 10, 2012)

Three monkeys sat in a cocoanut tree
Discussing things as they're said to be.
Said one to the others, "Now listen, you two,
There's a certain rumor that can't be true.
That man descended from our noble race-
The very idea! It's a dire disgrace.

No monkey ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies and ruined her life,
And you've never known a mother monk
To leave her babies with others to bunk,
Or pass them on from one to another
'Til they hardly know who is their mother.

And another thing! You will never see. . .
A monk build a fence 'round a cocoanut tree
And let the cocoanuts go to waste,
Forbidding all other monks to taste.
Why, if I put a fence around the tree,
Starvation would force you to steal from me.

Here's another thing a monk won't do. . .
Go out at night and get on a stew,
Or use a gun or club or knife
To take some other monkey's life,
Yes, Man descended, the ornery cuss. . .
But brother he didn't descend from us!


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

thedeacon said:


> Three monkeys sat in a cocoanut tree
> Discussing things as they're said to be.
> Said one to the others, "Now listen, you two,
> There's a certain rumor that can't be true.
> ...



That is true. Man did not descend from monkeys. And even monkeys know it!

I think what is more intriguing is that 3 monkeys had a conversation like that.  I'd be willing to wager that a person wrote that and just made it sound like monkeys did it. People do that a lot. Other people believe it.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

Israel said:


> You mean "Yo quiero taco bell" was not the actual voice of the perrito?



I got a lot of deflection instead of truthful answers when I tried to have honest conversations with clergy over the years. I expect no different here.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It is what it is. Humans and everything else that are here right now took multiple paths to get here. Along the way many other species didn't make it. You either survive or you don't. Many species lasted much longer than humans have been around, it is just they were able to do it for hundreds of millions of years before hand. Whatever caused their demise may have helped our species to start. Evolution seems to go as Nature dictates.



My point was in your last post before this one you stated that there "is no truth or untruth" then procceded to give us the "truth" about evolution. 

How do you believe what you type if you don't believe it to be the truth?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> My point was in your last post before this one you stated that there "is no truth or untruth" then procceded to give us the "truth" about evolution.
> 
> How do you believe what you type if you don't believe it to be the truth?



I believe in the direction that my studies have taken me. I can't say 100% that it is the truth. From what I have studied and learned and continue to learn, that is the direction that is more likely than not. No where did I ever say it was the "truth". Whatever interpretation you want to put on it is up to you. All I can say is research it, study it and make a decision on your own. But please, don't add things like I've said them when I did not.


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If adam and eve are our first parents, why don't all humans have the same genes?



Just for fun Google Mitochondrial Eve.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I believe in the direction that my studies have taken me. I can't say 100% that it is the truth. From what I have studied and learned and continue to learn, that is the direction that is more likely than not.


Hmmmm, kinda like faith huh? You know, the kind of faith we Christians get called irrational all the time for.




> No where did I ever say it was the "truth". Whatever interpretation you want to put on it is up to you. All I can say is research it, study it and make a decision on your own. But please, don't add things like I've said them when I did not.


What did I add?

When you say things that you consider facts, the logical assumption is that you believe your stated fact is the truth. 

If someone says "that dog is blue", it would be a false assumption on my part to think the person truely believed the dog was brown.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

Madman said:


> Just for fun Google Mitochondrial Eve.



I am very familiar with it. I will reply that you should study it further and see how and why our genes can be traced back to that area and her. Then study how and why they branched off as they did. I have a spoiler alert.....she was not the only female alive at the time. She is just the most recent(200,000 years ago) matrilineal common ancestor that we have been able to trace back to.


----------



## Steve Thompson (Dec 10, 2012)

Big Foot + martians = Us.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Hmmmm, kinda like faith huh? You know, the kind of faith we Christians get called irrational all the time for.


No. Not like faith at all





stringmusic said:


> What did I add?
> 
> When you say things that you consider facts, the logical assumption is that you believe your stated fact is the truth.
> 
> If someone says "that dog is blue", it would be a false assumption on my part to think the person truely believed the dog was brown.



I gave some facts. It is up to the individual reader to decide if they want to believe them or not. I hope that people will not take me for my word and do some research to not only find out that I am just not making things up as I go, but will take the time to educate themselves a bit on the subject. 

 Truth is the dog is really blue. Faith would have him as brown despite the facts.


----------



## Israel (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I got a lot of deflection instead of truthful answers when I tried to have honest conversations with clergy over the years. I expect no different here.



OK.
Take that little impulse that seems to drive you to self confessed discussions with clergy and let's blow it up large enough for all to see. If perhaps we can. Maybe it's not your motive, at all, I sure don't know.

I am not clergy. And I so rarely come across them I would almost be forced to consider that unless I purposely seek them out, I might never know who is...or isn't.
Of the twenty or so turned around collars I have even seen perhaps in the last few years, some from car windows as I drive by, some in the hospital hall as we pass, some in a hospital room of the desperately ill...in my day to day...I don't know that I have had much opportunity to interact, again, unless I purposefully sought it out. Other than that collar or robe...how do I know who considers themselves "clergy"? 

Is the guy behind me at Krogers a pastor (and even if he were, he might deny being clergy)...cause he just dresses like the bag boy?
So, unless you work in a rectory, an old age home for retired pastors, deliver communion wine or wafers, or somehow serendipitously have a slew of neighbors that call themselves clergy, I would have to assume your discussions have been by some design. Either yours, theirs...or...coincidence. 
That is...unless you take the 12 gauge approach and simply start every conversation with "I believe in evolution, do you? And by the way...do you represent a religion in some assumed leadership capacity?"

So...have the "clergy" sought you out? I realize that as a possibility too. I get knocks on my door from time to time, those who tell me they are doing as instructed according to some arcane understanding of something written about going "house to house".

(Everyone enjoys a written endorsement of their implied obedience from time to time.)

and of course...it could be none of the above.

I know a man who used to search out christians. (And if you be one...or not...God knows) He sought to unseat their faith through more direct methods than discussions, and didn't make any pretense of self deception or proclamation by hoping to enlighten their presumed benighted estate.

He was once told "it is hard to kick against the pricks".

Whether you think yourself better than him or less...God knows. 
If perhaps the former, you'll discover no harder course does a man set for himself than navigating toward the mirage of proving "Jesus is NOT Lord"
If less, you are doing well to consider your brother better than yourself. 

And if, by God's will, you come to see you are esteemed the same in the eyes of the one who is no respecter of persons, you will be happiest among the many happiest.

(Remember this axiom: "If a man imagines truth to be better than a lie, he's already entered the boggy swamp of moral absolutes...better find a firm place to walk." 
St. Pogo d'Okefenokee)


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No. Not like faith at all


What is it like then? To believe in something you don't know all the answers to?



> I gave some facts. It is up to the individual reader to decide if they want to believe them or not. I hope that people will not take me for my word and do some research to not only find out that I am just not making things up as I go, but will take the time to educate themselves a bit on the subject.


Why would someone want to believe _anything_ if there is no such thing a truth?(other than the truth that there is not such thing as truth) 



> Truth is the dog is really blue. Faith would have him as brown despite the facts.



How can it be true that the "dog is blue"? There is no truth, remember?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

Israel said:


> OK.
> Take that little impulse that seems to drive you to self confessed discussions with clergy and let's blow it up large enough for all to see. If perhaps we can. Maybe it's not your motive, at all, I sure don't know.
> 
> I am not clergy. And I so rarely come across them I would almost be forced to consider that unless I purposely seek them out, I might never know who is...or isn't.
> ...



I sought conversation(s) with my own (former)Pastor when I was in my late teens and early 20's.
I sought conversation(s) with the priest that hosted marriage classes before a church would marry us.
I sought conversation(s) with the Priest that married us.
I have a close friend that is a Catholic Priest. We talk quite a few times a year both as friends and as a skeptic/priest.
I have two retired Reverends that frequent my business that I have taken their invitations to meet and discuss things. Each on two separate occasions over the last 16 years.
And since 1985, I have had literally hundreds of conversations with my M-I-L who is a Eucharistic Minister, self proclaimed "holy roller" and a most worthy adversary on more levels than just religion.

The conversations include many of the things discussed in these forums. I have learned an awful lot from each of those representatives. We have left conversations with each to think about and research until the next time, then pick up with thoughts and answers gained by our efforts in between.
I made efforts to specifically seek out and talk in depth to members of the clergy. I do not have or consider a ten second conversation in a checkout lane a religious conversation.
I am talking sit down, in depth conversations directly about religion, beliefs, science, the Church, God, other religions and every darn thing that goes with it.
Yes. I made it a point to discuss these things with members of the clergy.

Side note:
The one time clergy knocked on our door to make his annual visit I was told I was going to h3ll for even trying to discuss such things with him. He has since retired but had not been back for a visit when he still was active....lololol


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What is it like then? To believe in something you don't know all the answers to?
> 
> 
> Why would someone want to believe _anything_ if there is no such thing a truth?(other than the truth that there is not such thing as truth)
> ...



string I know you mean well and are sincere with your conversations. It is just that you mish-mash parts in with other parts to try to get the conversation to go to your liking when it just really is not necessary.

If a dog is blue the dog is blue.

Evolution is what it is. I believe in it because to me it makes the most sense from all the different options. It is not a faith in evolution no more than I have faith in pushing buttons on this keypad and spelling the right words. It is what happens after certain events. I find that it works and I stick with it.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> string I know you mean well and are sincere with your conversations. It is just that you mish-mash parts in with other parts to try to get the conversation to go to your liking when it just really is not necessary.
> 
> If a dog is blue the dog is blue.
> 
> Evolution is what it is. I believe in it because to me it makes the most sense from all the different options. It is not a faith in evolution no more than I have faith in pushing buttons on this keypad and spelling the right words. It is what happens after certain events. I find that it works and I stick with it.



You can't say things like....


bullethead said:


> There is no truth or untruth.


... and then go about telling the "truth" about evolution. There is either a such thing as truth, or there isn't.

I haven't "mish-mashed" parts of anything, I quoted you directly in every post I've made. It just seems that I've "mish-mashed" things because of the logical fallacy in your posts 

If a dog is blue, then the dog is blue, that is the truth. If that is the truth, then truth exists and your statement that "there is no truth" is false.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You can't say things like....
> 
> ... and then go about telling the "truth" about evolution. There is either a such thing as truth, or there isn't.



I told what I have learned about evolution. It is why I tend to favor evolution over religion. It seems to make the most sense to me. YOU are the one claiming I then claimed it to be the "truth". WHERE did I say what you are now about to read is the "truth"? Point it out to me. You are taking what I said and are adding your own conclusion as if I said it or implied it.




stringmusic said:


> I haven't "mish-mashed" parts of anything, I quoted you directly in every post I've made. It just seems that I've "mish-mashed" things because of the logical fallacy in your posts
> 
> If a dog is blue, then the dog is blue, that is the truth. If that is the truth, then truth exists and your statement that "there is not truth" is false.



If a dog is blue it is blue. I consider that to be true.

Now, how through evolution that dog became blue is something I would tend to believe and agree with, you might not. You might have a belief that a God folded his arms and blinked that dog blue. There is a 50/50 shot at one of those being right. I'd stick with the evolution side of it.
I could be wrong, you could be wrong and neither evolution or a god might not have anything to do with that blue dog. Therefore I will stick with that while neither might be true, one to me, is more likely than the other based on what I have learned. I would then explain by giving examples of what and why that led me to go with that.


----------



## David Parker (Dec 10, 2012)

Good grief!  3 pages in and you've made it to, "If a dog is blue is that a truth?"  

Herez a truth, there will never EVER be common ground on this.  Either you are or you aren't.  There's the truth.  Here it is again:

Either you are or you aren't.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I told what I have learned about evolution. It is why I tend to favor evolution over religion. It seems to make the most sense to me. YOU are the one claiming I then claimed it to be the "truth". WHERE did I say what you are now about to read is the "truth"? Point it out to me. You are taking what I said and are adding your own conclusion as if I said it or implied it.


It is implied when you say something "is" or "is not".




> If a dog is blue it is blue. I consider that to be true.


If the dog *is* blue, and you would consider that to be truth, and evolutions *is* what you wrote below, then it would imply that you thought that was truth as well.

Sound familiar?....


bullethead said:


> There is no goal. There is no truth or untruth. Evolution IS. It is survival of the fittest. Evolution is whatever it has come to be up until this minute today. Evolutions goal is not for everything to be human. We are just a small part in a short time span. Evolution has no plan. Evolution is humans figured out how to use tools and fire, if we did not figure it out we most likely would not have survived as a species. This Earth, Nature, Universe has gotten along just fine before us and will continue to long after us.


All I'm pointing out to you is the fallacy in your statement that there is no such thing as truth and then you proceed to tell us all what *is* when it comes to evolution.

Maybe you should have just put "I think" instead of using the word "is" so much. Saying something "is" implies truth.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

Jeremy Wade said:


> Good grief!  3 pages in and you've made it to, "If a dog is blue is that a truth?"


That question was never asked.  



> Herez a truth, there will never EVER be common ground on this.  Either you are or you aren't.  There's the truth.  Here it is again:
> 
> Either you are or you aren't.



Either you are or you aren't what? I don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> It is implied when you say something "is" or "is not".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Definition of *is*!!
Thank You Mr. Clinton


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The Definition of *is*!!
> Thank You Mr. Clinton



Swoooooosh...

That was the sound of your post going over my head.


----------



## JFS (Dec 10, 2012)

bsanders said:


> You guys believe and promote that an organism can be born with its genetic makeup and traits, then have the ability to change his or her genes based upon what they think needs to happen?




Ahhh, now I get it.  

The problem isn't science or religion, it's reading comprehension.


----------



## David Parker (Dec 10, 2012)




----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Swoooooosh...
> 
> That was the sound of your post going over my head.


----------



## Israel (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> With everyone praying for me for all these years I should have been a changed man 100 times over. Seems like we are each trying to help one another.



You said 20 years ago you extinguished something.
Is it presumptuous, (except for that statement being as a response) for me to understand you "extinguished" faith that Jesus is Savior and maker? 

Or, at least as the scripture describes...as him through whom all things were made?

How did you "extinguish" it? Did something take the place of the Lord in your heart and affections...that thing of which you described as like hitting a keyboard...taking no faith...just rendering a consistent result...and which now, as you said "works for you?"
Is that what you once counted on Jesus being for you?

And so, if and when he was (to your mind) demonstrably insufficient as an explanation of species, and therefore a failure(?) in all other things...this devotion to something scientific...was raised up to extinguish your faith?

My testifying of something by no means assures my having appropriated it. So what I say does not come with the implication that I presume to have fully received something I believe is true.
But it is this.

Those who refuse to receive the love of the truth...will be sent strong delusion as to believe a lie.

Like I said...my saying it does not equal my assurance of not being deceived my own self.
But this I know...I can have something right in front of me, and not see it, have something I believe to be one thing assuredly, and have it shown to be something entirely different, and even mistake being awake...while still asleep.

I live in a place I don't expect except by miracle, you could accept. (I don't ever recall using except expect accept in one sentence) That's because I know it is only a miracle I am here. And that place is where sight is given, not presumed...and so I can't even say I have it.
It is only according to the will of another that I do not mistake my dog for a rabbit while hunting, my wife for an intruder when I wake with a start, or a bar of soap for an ice cream cone.
Yes, I could just as easily and gladly promote a trilobite as an ancestor of sorts...if that were willed.

Your testimony, for now, unless I am presumptuous...is Jesus is not Savior...and you find evolutionary considerations a comfort that "work for you". 

Maybe one of us, both of us, don't yet see as we ought?

But that ought has many implications, one of which could include the discovery that what seemed to work...may not.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

Israel said:


> You said 20 years ago you extinguished something.
> Is it presumptuous, (except for that statement being as a response) for me to understand you "extinguished" faith that Jesus is Savior and maker?
> 
> Or, at least as the scripture describes...as him through whom all things were made?
> ...



I used the word "extinguished" in response to this post.


bsanders said:


> all you are doing is trying to point me in the direction of something that someone else said. They won't bring up the number of averages on the measurements either. One day you will realize that your beliefs or failure to believe has gotten you into something that can not be extinguished. And that day you will admit that God, Jesus Christ, is the maker of all.



No need to be all concerned about it.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


>





That's funny right there!!

He's a goober though, you're not, you know what the meaning of "is" is.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> That's funny right there!!
> 
> He's a goober though, you're not, you know what the meaning of "is" is.



1. Thanks
2. To clarify... Evolution TO ME IS....(all that other stuff I posted before.)


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> 1. Thanks
> 2. To clarify... Evolution TO ME IS....(all that other stuff I posted before.)



Gotcha.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Gotcha.



Whew!!  back atcha! Now I can finish wiping down my firearms that I started to do about 9am this morning! lololol


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Whew!!  back atcha! Now I can finish wiping down my firearms that I started to do about 9am this morning! lololol



LOL, dontcha just love this site! I've worked for about 20 mins today.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> LOL, dontcha just love this site! I've worked for about 20 mins today.



Yeah, lunch time has got to be soon.....d'oh!!!!


----------



## bsanders (Dec 10, 2012)

Its not reading comprehension. How do genetics change? they have no choice on what happens. So how do they or what makes them change? And I don't want to hear a theory.


----------



## JFS (Dec 10, 2012)

bsanders said:


> How do genetics change? they have no choice on what happens. So how do they or what makes them change?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mutation


----------



## bsanders (Dec 10, 2012)

mutation states that chemical or radiation is needed. "or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely" so cross that one off the list."it has been suggested that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70% of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial." Thanks for the info.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 10, 2012)

bsanders said:


> Its not reading comprehension. How do genetics change? they have no choice on what happens. So how do they or what makes them change? And I don't want to hear a theory.



One example would be a buck with a gene to induce a gimpy leg. He wouldn't be able to chase a doe so there would be no offspring to carry on the gimpy leg gene. Most of this stuff happens really, really, really slow. That's why it's hard to fathom. Some thing happen in our lifetime. Look how quickly the AIDS virus showed up. Was the actual virus we have now on the ARK or an earlier variant that wasn't as deadly?
I have no trouble combining science with religion. I can explain a rainbow two ways.


----------



## bsanders (Dec 10, 2012)

Origin of life
Further information: Abiogenesis and RNA world hypothesis
Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[241] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[242] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[243] and the assembly of simple cells.[244]. Hey this is what you folks believe. That all life began from one cell. that all living things came from one cell. That a snail and a human and a dolphin all came from the same cell. thanks again for the info.


----------



## bsanders (Dec 10, 2012)

I understand the rainbow thing 100%. but evolution has nothing to do with a rainbow.


----------



## tarrendale (Dec 10, 2012)

Bsanders I think I might have evolved from a horse.


----------



## Israel (Dec 11, 2012)

bsanders said:


> Origin of life
> Further information: Abiogenesis and RNA world hypothesis
> Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[241] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[242] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[243] and the assembly of simple cells.[244]. Hey this is what you folks believe. That all life began from one cell. that all living things came from one cell. That poison a snail and a human and a dolphin all came from the same cell. thanks again for the info.



The most curious part is there seems to be no allowance for the frailty of natural life.
Really...what does it take to kill a cell? 
And then...back to the drawing board. 

I can go to Krogers and give the most brilliant scientists all the parts, cellophane wrapped, 99 cents a pound, (which is a huge head start), and still not see Frankenchicken live.

I don't despise scientists, despite the facetiousness of it. They do the best they can with what is at hand...and I understand that apart from the acceptance of an intelligent designer, one can only look around and say "OK, we are here, what best explains it..."

If "life" were an accident, product of happenstance, then all that has accrued to it, including self consciousness, reason, and intellect, owes its paternity to no less (or more).

Yet even the most devout in that sanctuary trusts their microscope, mass spectrometer, and all the other gizmos to be intelligently designed...in order to prove life has no "reason".

If reason is happenstance...to them and for them, then only God knows where theirs will take them.


----------



## JFS (Dec 11, 2012)

Israel said:


> If "life" were an accident, product of happenstance, then all that has accrued to it, including self consciousness, reason, and intellect, owes its paternity to no less (or more).



If one can manage to stop looking at things through the narcissistic prism even briefly, those questions pale immeasurably against the simple question of why there is anything here at all.  Pick your answer, but in the end perhaps it turns out they were all facetious.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 11, 2012)

bsanders said:


> I understand the rainbow thing 100%. but evolution has nothing to do with a rainbow.



Only from a standpoint that Biblical things can be explained scientifically as well.


----------



## Israel (Dec 11, 2012)

JFS said:


> If one can manage to stop looking at things through the narcissistic prism even briefly, those questions pale immeasurably against the simple question of why there is anything here at all.  Pick your answer, but in the end perhaps it turns out they were all facetious.



If the narcissistic prism could be abandoned even briefly; that is, you (or I) able to look from some position not our own...tell me how this is accomplished.
Since you have discovered this question before which all others pale, there...which is, in short,
 "why anything?"

does it not also include the "why not everything?".

With man it is impossible, with God...all things are possible.


Perhaps even the possibility of seeing a man free of narcissism.

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth will draw all men unto me...

Behold a man becomeing what he is not.
Behold a God who raises the dead.
Behold a savior who saves narcissists, by putting them to death in his own self.


Behold the one in whom all things are possible.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2012)

Israel said:


> If the narcissistic prism could be abandoned even briefly; that is, you (or I) able to look from some position not our own...tell me how this is accomplished.
> Since you have discovered this question before which all others pale, there...which is, in short,
> "why anything?"
> 
> ...




_be·hold
verb \bi-ËˆhÅ�ld, bÄ“-\
be·held be·hold·ing
Definition of BEHOLD
transitive verb
1
: to perceive through sight or apprehension : see
2
: to gaze upon : observe _

Where can I behold this gent?


----------



## Israel (Dec 11, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> _be·hold
> verb \bi-ËˆhÅ�ld, bÄ“-\
> be·held be·hold·ing
> Definition of BEHOLD
> ...




ahead of you


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2012)

Israel said:


> ahead of you




....hmmmmmm, just the neighbor.


----------



## JFS (Dec 11, 2012)

Israel said:


> Behold a God who raises the dead.



Meh, claimed by many, demonstrated by none.  There is a great, awesome, sublime unknown.   You can fill it with sacrificial folklore or whatever comforts you, but that vacuum is being filled by your fearful, insecure self and not any knowledge or understanding.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 11, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> _be·hold
> verb \bi-ËˆhÅ�ld, bÄ“-\
> be·held be·hold·ing
> Definition of BEHOLD
> ...


Read your bible that third time.

Definition of apprehension 

ap·pre·hen·sion [ àppri hénsh'n ]   1.dread: a feeling of anxiety or fear that something bad or unpleasant will happen
2.arrest: the taking of a criminal suspect into custody
3.ability to understand: the power or ability to grasp the importance, significance, or meaning of something

To perceive through understanding.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 11, 2012)

JFS said:


> Meh, claimed by many, demonstrated by none.



See Ambush, JFS doesn't _behold_.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Read your bible that third time.
> 
> Definition of apprehension
> 
> ...



It's nonsense, in my opinion.   I'll try something else.....


----------



## Israel (Dec 11, 2012)

JFS said:


> Meh, claimed by many, demonstrated by none.  There is a great, awesome, sublime unknown.   You can fill it with sacrificial folklore or whatever comforts you, but that vacuum is being filled by your fearful, insecure self and not any knowledge or understanding.



Perhaps your issue is more with me than God? 
Sounds like you have already made up your mind about what manner of man I am, and yet, even then, you are still way too kind.

God is far greater than I am surely, but don't count my poverty in expressing Him as his fault at all.
Steadfast, where you obviously perceive rightly, I am not.
Kind, where again you obviously perceive my motives are painfully self-centered. 
And full of all the knowledge and understanding you rightly discern I lack.

But, you can know him...even if I don't appear to, at all.


----------



## Israel (Dec 11, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> ....hmmmmmm, just the neighbor.


When you understand the parable of the Samaritan, you will understand just what a good neighbor...He really is.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2012)

Israel said:


> When you understand the parable of the Samaritan, you will understand just what a good neighbor...He really is.



I couldn't possibly understand what a GOD wrote.  Unless I was special powered with discernmentabilty.


----------



## Israel (Dec 11, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I couldn't possibly understand what a GOD wrote.  Unless I was special powered with discernmentabilty.



Ha! You got it all available to you...all the discernmentabilityaciousness you will ever need...simply ask...


----------



## bsanders (Dec 11, 2012)

http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html


----------



## bullethead (Dec 11, 2012)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html


----------



## JFS (Dec 12, 2012)

bsanders said:


> http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html



That may be the dumbest argument I have ever read.  For the record, evolution does not need to explain the origin of the solar system to be valid.


----------



## Israel (Dec 12, 2012)

Everyone really will know...soon enough.
<---Eternity------------------------(your life)------------------some more Eternity--->
At what point on an infinite line does something...no matter how large it may be, but finite...become infinitely small?

Get smaller...see better.


----------



## bsanders (Dec 12, 2012)

Now we have the same feelings toward what each other believes.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 12, 2012)

Israel said:


> Everyone really will know...soon enough.
> <---Eternity------------------------(your life)------------------some more Eternity--->
> At what point on an infinite line does something...no matter how large it may be, but finite...become infinitely small?
> 
> Get smaller...see better.



Are there really any "points" on that timeline?


----------



## Israel (Dec 12, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Are there really any "points" on that timeline?


yeah...where does one end...and the other begin?
Good "point"!


----------



## JFS (Dec 12, 2012)

bsanders said:


> Now we have the same feelings toward what each other believes.



I doubt that.  When we look at the night sky and see stars, it's a wonder.   But we have a pretty good idea how stars are formed.  We know how gravity works as a mechanism to produce the changes that end up with stars, or quasars or whatever.    Some people say god just upped and created stars and that's why they exist, but that really ignores the evidence.  Now where gravity came from, that's a mystery.  I don't think there is evidence a supernatural intelligence created it, but I can't show any different either so it is open to interpretation or faith or whatever you want to use to fill that hole.  

Same with people.  We know the biological mechanism that creates diversity and species and evolution.   Ignoring that isn't a difference of opinion, it's just ignorance.  But do we know what set it all in motion? No, so that is open to debate- natural origin, intelligent design, or whatever.  I can't show there wasn't a spook that set in all in motion any more than anyone here can show there was.   And on that we have some good discussions here.

So we can't have equivalent opinions of the other's views since I will grant the equivalency of contrary beliefs on the origins of universal forces, but not the mechanisms by which the observable universe works.  I don't think you can admit there maybe there is no god and yet insist on us poofing to existence 6,000 years ago.   You are ignoring science (I would say reality) and it's not necessary- you can still have faith in a creator without putting your head in the sand with regard to how the creation works.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 13, 2012)

Israel said:


> yeah...where does one end...and the other begin?
> Good "point"!



You drew a Buddhist timeline

A Christian timeline would be:

"In the beginning"-------------------------->>>eternity

Now that leaves room for eternal suffering.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 13, 2012)

Evolution is just a theory.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Evolution is what it is. I believe in it because to me it makes the most sense from all the different options.



What's the difference in the theory of evolution and the theory of my God?


----------



## bsanders (Dec 13, 2012)

Mtnwoman......dont say that! It will confuse them. And make them post links that are nothing but letters formed to look like something that would make sense to smart, earthly folks.


----------



## Israel (Dec 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> You drew a Buddhist timeline
> 
> A Christian timeline would be:
> 
> ...



Please don't tell.



Oh.


----------



## JFS (Dec 13, 2012)

bsanders said:


> Mtnwoman......dont say that! It will confuse them. And make them post links that are nothing but letters formed to look like something that would make sense to smart, earthly folks.



Dang you got us there. Sorry about that makin' sense stuff.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> What's the difference in the theory of evolution and the theory of my God?



What's wrong with believing both the Christian reason for a rainbow and the scientific prism mumbo jumbo crap at the same time?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 14, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> What's the difference in the theory of evolution and the theory of my God?



Only because you ask these questions(that are EASILY answerable with just 10 seconds of research) but refuse to educate yourself, I will once again do your homework for you and show you what the difference is between the two theories.
OR
You can take the time to look up "Criteria for a Scientific Theory" and read it from numerous sources yourself.

Creationists complain that evolution isn't valid or genuine science, but exactly the opposite is the case: evolution meets the criteria generally accepted by scientists as defining science and the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as science. Evolution is the central organizing framework for the biological sciences and is just as scientifically valid as analogous theories in other scientific fields: plate tectonics, atomic theory, quantum mechanics, etc. Creationist complaints rely upon misrepresentations of both evolution and science, so understanding what makes something scientific is helpful here.

Criteria for a Scientific Theory
To fully understand how and why evolution is scientific, it's important to first know what the generally accepted criteria for scientific theories are. Scientific theories must be:

    Consistent (internally & externally)
    Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
    Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
    Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
    Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
    Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
    Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)
    Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Evolution is Consistent
Although there are gaps in our knowledge, disagreements as to how evolution occurred, and gaps in the evidence, the idea of common descent is still overwhelmingly supported by both historical and contemporary evidence as well as our understanding of how changes occur in living organisms. All evidence we have supports evolutionary theory and common descent; absolutely no evidence points to anything else. Evolution is also externally consistent: it does not contradict solid findings in any other physical science. If evolution did contradict physics or chemistry, that would be a significant problem.

Evolution is Parsimonious
Evolution is naturalistic and does not add unnecessary concepts, entities, or processes to our understanding of the universe. Evolution, which is just genetic change over time, does not rely upon any entities or concepts which do not otherwise exist in any scientific model. Common descent does not require us to imagine anything new or unusual in the universe. This means is the theory of evolution is the simplest and most reliable explanation of the diversity of life on our planet. Everything offered as alternatives requires us to imagine new entities not used or needed in any other scientific model, like gods.

Evolution is Useful
Evolution is the unifying principle of the life sciences, which includes medicine. This means that much of what is done in the biological and medical sciences could not occur without the background premise of evolution. I've yet to see any Evolution Deniers willing to give up modern medicine. Evolutionary theory also suggests lots of problems for scientists to work on because it makes predictions which, in turn, provide experiments to perform in order to better understand what's going on in the natural world. Evolution thus provides an overall paradigm for solving current problems within the life sciences.

Evolutionary Theory Can Be Tested
Because evolution as common descent is largely a historical science, testing it is complicated — but it's not impossible. As with other historical investigations, we can make predictions and retrodictions (utilize present information to infer or explain past events or states) based on the theory. We can thus state that we would expect to find certain things (like types of fossils) when looking at the historical record; if they are found, it supports the theory. We cannot perform the direct tests like those often found physics and chemistry, but the theory of evolution is as testable as other historical theories.

Evolutionary Theory Can Be Falsified
Falsification of evolution as common descent would be complicated because of the vast amount of supporting evidence. Evolution rests upon a general and widespread pattern of evidence from many different fields, so a similar pattern of contradictory evidence is needed to falsify it. Isolated anomalies might force modifications, but no more. If we found a general pattern of fossils in rocks dated to different ages than expected, that would be a problem for evolution. If our understanding of physics and chemistry changed significantly, causing us to find that the earth is quite young, that would falsify evolution.
Evolutionary Theory is Correctable & Dynamic
Evolution is based solely on the evidence, thus if the evidence changes so will the theory; in fact, subtle changes to aspects of evolutionary theory can be observed by anyone who regularly reads biology journals and pays attention to the scientific debates. Evolutionary theory today is not quite the same as the evolutionary theory which Charles Darwin originally devised and wrote about, though he was correct enough that much of what he discovered continues to b valid. Since there are gaps in our understanding and evidence, we can expect to see more changes in the future as our understanding expands.

Evolutionary Theory is Progressive
The idea that a scientific theory should be progressive means that a new scientific theory should build on earlier scientific theories. In other words, a new theory must explain what previous theories explained at least as well as they did while providing a new understanding for additional material — something which evolution does. Another way to see how scientific theories need to be progressive is that they can be shown to be superior to competing theories. It should be possible to compare several explanations for a phenomenon and find that one does a much better job than the others. This is true of evolution.

Evolution and the Scientific Method
The general theory of evolution easily meets the criteria for scientific theories. How about the scientific method: was the idea of common descent arrived at scientifically? Yes — the idea was arrived at by examining nature. Looking at existing species, examining their characteristics and commonalities, and considering how they arose led to the idea of common descent. We can see the scientific method at work at every stage of the study of evolution and the biological sciences; in contrast, we find not the scientific method but theology and religious orthodoxy behind evolution’s creationist competitors.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 14, 2012)

bsanders said:


> Mtnwoman......dont say that! It will confuse them. And make them post links that are nothing but letters formed to look like something that would make sense to smart, earthly folks.



Yes, "we" are confused.


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 14, 2012)

All this feather fluffing, tail fanning, and noise making over the identifying of a physical object which has been before the nose of men for as long as men have been, and it has now been hypothesized that this physical object “appears to have” had an effect upon a hypothetical historical development, which took place untold thousands of multiples of the span of recorded history ago, if true would support another hypothetical historical relationship which … Oh never mind.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 14, 2012)

hummerpoo said:


> All this feather fluffing, tail fanning, and noise making over the identifying of a physical object which has been before the nose of men for as long as men have been, and it has now been hypothesized that this physical object “appears to have” had an effect upon a hypothetical historical development, which took place untold thousands of multiples of the span of recorded history ago, if true would support another hypothetical historical relationship which … Oh never mind.



I take it you have a better method for examining the physical evidence than 'breaking open' rocks and atoms?


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I take it you have a better method for examining the physical evidence than 'breaking open' rocks and atoms?



Not at all, I just think we (all people) would be better served if scientific information would be treated more like the purchase of a new vehicle rather than the sale of a used one...maybe not the best example ... make that a new commecial vehicle and used luxury car.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 14, 2012)

hummerpoo said:


> Not at all, I just think we (all people) would be better served if scientific information would be treated more like the purchase of a new vehicle rather than the sale of a used one...maybe not the best example ... make that a new commecial vehicle and used luxury car.



I'm not sure I get your meaning.


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I'm not sure I get your meaning.



The article referenced by the OP is full of qualifying and mitigating language which is ignored by most participating in this discussion.  The result is a false value.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 14, 2012)

I don't think any reasonable person takes evolutionary science as gospel.


----------



## hunter rich (Dec 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think any reasonable person takes evolutionary science as gospel.



I don't think any reasonable THINKING person takes the gospel for gospel...


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 14, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> I don't think any reasonable THINKING person takes the gospel for gospel...




You'd be surprised...


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 14, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> I don't think any reasonable THINKING person takes the gospel for gospel.






On the contrair, I think any reasonable THINKING person would take the GOSPEL "The Good News" as the gospel.

I think any reasonable person can see that Darwin's theory was a pretty good "THEORY" for the times but when we study it along with science we can pretty much put it where it belongs.

The word of God is not a theory, it is fact, are some words moved around, maybe, are some stories "parables" taken as a true happening, maybe, who knows. Is the word of God the only true guide for the life of mankind? Absolutely. 

Now and forever God is in control. Sometimes he just lets us loose to make fools of ourselves but never be deceived that something is in control besides God.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> To believe in something you don't know all the answers to?



Seems like some need all the answers when it comes to Christianity though, don't it? Logically I don't see the difference in believing to the inth on one theory, but  doubt another theory.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> What's wrong with believing both the Christian reason for a rainbow and the scientific prism mumbo jumbo crap at the same time?



Even if it is a prism, God created it.....that's my opinion or 'theory'.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 14, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Only because you ask these questions(that are EASILY answerable with just 10 seconds of research) but refuse to educate yourself, I will once again do your homework for you and show you what the difference is between the two theories.
> OR
> You can take the time to look up "Criteria for a Scientific Theory" and read it from numerous sources yourself.
> 
> ...



Speaking of homework....we were taught evolution in science in highschool. 

I didn't ask you for a class in science. I believe in science...I just happen to believe God created everything, including anything scientific. Show me one scientist that has created anything out of nothing, then I might be interested. Anything that any scientist has invented or discovered has always been on this earth. Where did that come from? Prove that to me, and I'll listen....otherwise it's still just a theory.
Thanks for the info though.

The question I ask you was what's the difference in my so called theory about God and your belief in a scientific theory....the answer to that is....nothing. There is no difference 101.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 14, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Speaking of homework....we were taught evolution in science in highschool.
> 
> I didn't ask you for a class in science. I believe in science...I just happen to believe God created everything, including anything scientific. Show me one scientist that has created anything out of nothing, then I might be interested. Anything that any scientist has invented or discovered has always been on this earth. Where did that come from? Prove that to me, and I'll listen....otherwise it's still just a theory.
> Thanks for the info though.
> ...



My post above describes Scientific THEORY. Yours does not hold up to the standards set forth by the scientific community. That is the difference.
Scientific THEORY is not the same "theory" that you are thinking of. It is not the same as the theory you use for a God.
THAT is why you got the lesson.
I now understand that you still do not understand the difference. All I can say is look it up. The answer is out there. They are two different definitions of theory, held to different standards and probably why you and a few others are confused. But, that IS explained above......


----------



## bullethead (Dec 14, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Speaking of homework....we were taught evolution in science in highschool.
> 
> I didn't ask you for a class in science. I believe in science...I just happen to believe God created everything, including anything scientific. Show me one scientist that has created anything out of nothing, then I might be interested. Anything that any scientist has invented or discovered has always been on this earth. Where did that come from? Prove that to me, and I'll listen....otherwise it's still just a theory.
> Thanks for the info though.
> ...



Do me a solid favor, SHOW me a god that created anything.


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 14, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Only because you ask these questions(that are EASILY answerable with just 10 seconds of research) but refuse to educate yourself, I will once again do your homework for you and show you what the difference is between the two theories.
> OR
> You can take the time to look up "Criteria for a Scientific Theory" and read it from numerous sources yourself.
> 
> ...



I have not, and am unlikely to, taken time to carefully read this paste but a cursory look seems to reveal at least two weak spots (highlighted above), one of which I think is winked at, and the other ignored.

That's enough, I'm way over my 10 seconds.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 14, 2012)

hummerpoo said:


> I have not, and am unlikely to, taken time to carefully read this paste but a cursory look seems to reveal at least two weak spots (highlighted above), one of which I think is winked at, and the other ignored.
> 
> That's enough, I'm way over my 10 seconds.



The highlighted are part of the process. What does your cursory look reveal about the other criteria? And if you can spare another 10 seconds, please tell us how your religion/beliefs stack up to the same.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What does your cursory look reveal about the other criteria?


You are stuck in a system that changes definitions, by the showing of the hands of foolish men, at a convention. True wisdom comes from God and is available to every Believer. Caution, this wisdom does not lead to intellectual elitism, but to service.


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The highlighted are part of the process. What does your cursory look reveal about the other criteria? And if you can spare another 10 seconds, please tell us how your religion/beliefs stack up to the same.



No … It's part of the “criteria” chosen by the author as an outline for his piece.  He set up a straw man and missed it; typical of those who “talk about” things.

No ... You established the time limit, and it seems appropriate.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 15, 2012)

hummerpoo said:


> No … It's part of the “criteria” chosen by the author as an outline for his piece.  He set up a straw man and missed it; typical of those who “talk about” things.
> 
> No ... You established the time limit, and it seems appropriate.



As expected, nada.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 15, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> You are stuck in a system that changes definitions, by the showing of the hands of foolish men, at a convention.



Like for example, oh say...Counsels at Nicea perhaps??




> True wisdom comes from God and is available to every Believer. Caution, this wisdom does not lead to intellectual elitism, but to service.



I think your stuck in the same definition changing system....


----------



## bullethead (Dec 15, 2012)

Just a real quick and easy link for anyone that is still confused

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory


----------



## bullethead (Dec 15, 2012)

And one more 

 "Theory" in the scientific use of the word is different than the everyday language usage today. Most people today use "theory" as just a hunch, guess, belief, or proposal. Science uses the original meaning of "theory": a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has been verified—has stood up against attempts to prove it false.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Do me a solid favor, SHOW me a god that created anything.



I can't show you, you are not open to it. Your are blind to it. All you have to do is look around at all the beauty in the world....all the flowers, all the useful herbs and medicines that come from the earth. Look at how precisely and delicately the earth is made. Gravity, moon and tides, fuel oil, axis, etc etc to work for the good of man, and tell me a greater scientist than you know could not have created it all....even the first cell that created the first ape that could've led to the evolution of man. All of that couldn't have just accidentally poofed into existance. I'm not putting science down, if not for science we wouldn't have discovered all the things we've discovered.....but not created by them. I believe God gives scientists knowledge of these things as well as the gift of healing by doctors. How many people have been resurrected after dying in a hospital? How many people have been brought back to life by doctors. But yet you believe it is impossible to raise from the dead? Science proves a virgin can get pregnant, too. Why does that seem so impossible to you....the things of the Bible have been proven to be possible and yet you don't see any of that....you can't relate it?

I just believe in a greater scientist than those who live or have lived on earth and God uses them to bring all good things to men.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> My post above describes Scientific THEORY. Yours does not hold up to the standards set forth by the scientific community. That is the difference.
> Scientific THEORY is not the same "theory" that you are thinking of. It is not the same as the theory you use for a God.
> THAT is why you got the lesson.
> I now understand that you still do not understand the difference. All I can say is look it up. The answer is out there. They are two different definitions of theory, held to different standards and probably why you and a few others are confused. But, that IS explained above......



I am not confused. I just see something greater than what you try to usher into everyone's thought process, that scientists are your 'gods'.  Have you ever thought of where their wisdom comes from. 

A poppy, really? A coca plant, really? Polio vaccine, really? Those things just happen to grow on earth and a scientist discovered them, there would be no discovery if those things didn't exist. The OT tells us everything on earth, including all the herbs and plants of the earth were created for the good of man.....how could that writer have just guessed at that and now it has come to pass? That's proof to me, along with many, many other things in the bible. Perhaps reading the bible might give you some clues.....I know I know you've got the bible memorized and don't believe any of it. You prove to me how all of those things were discovered by scientists if they didn't exist in the first place. 

Neither one of us can prove anything to the other. However I at least give scientists a lot of credit for discovering many many things, but they did not create them.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> And one more
> 
> "Theory" in the scientific use of the word is different than the everyday language usage today. Most people today use "theory" as just a hunch, guess, belief, or proposal. Science uses the original meaning of "theory": a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has been verified—has stood up against attempts to prove it false.



So your theory on the word theory means proof positive?
Or just that it stands up to the scrutiny of men who do not believe there is something greater than themselves.....that's what I call narcissiam. You really give scientists the glory for all things on this earth?


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Like for example, oh say...Counsels at Nicea perhaps??


Yes



bullethead said:


> I think your stuck in the same definition changing system....


No


----------



## Israel (Dec 16, 2012)

A man can receive nothing except it be given him from above.

This is far different than a dog and bone analogy...for the dog may "try" to hold onto the bone. This is more a dog and previously eaten steak analogy, you can't take the digested steak outta the dog, it's already in the fabric of his being.

Men may try to distinguish the man part from the faith part, even thinking they can do something, say something, inflict something on the flesh to make the faith go away, while at best all they can do is help the faith man be rid of a burdensome seed coat.
Opposition only proves the reality, never diminishes it.
So does encouragement.

Opposers and encouragers both get a reward. How that affects each though, is remarkably different.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 16, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> So your theory on the word theory means proof positive?
> Or just that it stands up to the scrutiny of men who do not believe there is something greater than themselves.....that's what I call narcissiam. You really give scientists the glory for all things on this earth?



Scientists, men, nor the Gods that come from mankind's mind get the glory from me.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Scientists, men, nor the Gods that come from mankind's mind get the glory from me.


And on this we can agree!


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> And on this we can agree!



Me, too.


----------

