a) I did call it a hypothesis.
b) I fail to see how it's any kind of opiate.

mystery wrote:

im sorry, but can you give a single problem with the evolution theory? or better yet, a decent arguement for ID that is not merely a critique of evolution?
seriously, try me. or any other decently educated human.

Ok, ill give you 1 of many flaws of evolution..taht flaw is missing links. Evolution states that we have evolved from different species.

Im not totally sure what aniumals evolved int owhat, but its liek they say we evolved from apes...so me the missing link......did monkeys just change overnight? Did apes jsut turned in to homo erectus Neanderthals and all those other stages of humans (i dont beleive in taht either...but i knew you were going to try to use taht)overnight? Maybe we will evolve into some other animal tomorrow? I think you would say if i told you that upfront youd say that is ridiculous...but taht is exactly what you beleived happend.

Not overnight. Try hundreds of thousands of years of slow mutation and adaptation.

Theonymic wrote:

Not overnight. Try hundreds of thousands of years of slow mutation and adaptation.

thats what i meant..did they jsut adapt all of a sudden? there is no link... its liek saying i have a dog...and now he adapted and has pink fur....it doesnt make sense..because there are no links.

MetLHed4GZus wrote:

Theonymic wrote:

Not overnight. Try hundreds of thousands of years of slow mutation and adaptation.

thats what i meant..did they jsut adapt all of a sudden? there is no link... its liek saying i have a dog...and now he adapted and has pink fur....it doesnt make sense..because there are no links.

MetLHed4GZus wrote:

Theonymic wrote:

Not overnight. Try hundreds of thousands of years of slow mutation and adaptation.

thats what i meant..did they jsut adapt all of a sudden? there is no link... its liek saying i have a dog...and now he adapted and has pink fur....it doesnt make sense..because there are no links.

You're confusing me, which likely means that you don't understand the process being described here. Natural selection refers to the propagation of genetic characteristics which enable an organism to survive long enough to reproduce (or long enough to reproduce more times). The environment (and, as some of us believe, ultimately, God) decide which of these characteristics stay and which go. For instance, if having longer, more spread-out digits (fingers) and a larger area of loose skin between them gives me just enough added air resistance to survive a slightly higher fall from a tree, then I and others with this trait will survive a little longer and reproduce a little more, making this trait a little more common in the species. Eventually it will be the most common, and then those with even longer, more spread-out digits and even larger area of loose skin between them will begin to gain the advantage over others. Three thousand generations from now, my descendants have wings. Of course, I'm not saying that's how it happens exactly, but this is an illustration of what can happen with one trait.

olias wrote:

strong words, mystery. At any rate, I do agree with you M., in that there is not any scientific proof and that human exceptionalism is just a postulation made to fill in the lack of evidence of a transitional species. However, opiate of the masses? It's only a hypothesis.

it should still be based on some sort of logic. and i called it an opiate because it makes one feel better about the human race and eases the gap between science and literalist biblical interpretation. it helps people sleep at night i guess.

It has nothing to do with filling a gap between science and a literal interpretation, or making me sleep better, lawl. Given the lack of primate transitional forms into homo sapiens sapiens and our Biblical account, it seems the most plausible hypothesis to hold at this time. Stop being so antagonistic.

this is a board talking about evolution. Eventually there had to be something or other that would cause some rage, but mystery....opiate? I must ask, you have a picture with the hammer and sickle being destroyed(a good pic by the way), so why are you quoting Marx (who in turn, stole that phrase from someone else)?

Theonymic wrote:

MetLHed4GZus wrote:

Theonymic wrote:

Not overnight. Try hundreds of thousands of years of slow mutation and adaptation.

thats what i meant..did they jsut adapt all of a sudden? there is no link... its liek saying i have a dog...and now he adapted and has pink fur....it doesnt make sense..because there are no links.

You're confusing me, which likely means that you don't understand the process being described here. Natural selection refers to the propagation of genetic characteristics which enable an organism to survive long enough to reproduce (or long enough to reproduce more times). The environment (and, as some of us believe, ultimately, God) decide which of these characteristics stay and which go. For instance, if having longer, more spread-out digits (fingers) and a larger area of loose skin between them gives me just enough added air resistance to survive a slightly higher fall from a tree, then I and others with this trait will survive a little longer and reproduce a little more, making this trait a little more common in the species. Eventually it will be the most common, and then those with even longer, more spread-out digits and even larger area of loose skin between them will begin to gain the advantage over others. Three thousand generations from now, my descendants have wings. Of course, I'm not saying that's how it happens exactly, but this is an illustration of what can happen with one trait.

once again..like im trying to say... you failed to provide a link, where is the link of when we didnt have wings, and did have wings?

MetLHed4GZus wrote:

Theonymic wrote:

MetLHed4GZus wrote:

Theonymic wrote:

Not overnight. Try hundreds of thousands of years of slow mutation and adaptation.

thats what i meant..did they jsut adapt all of a sudden? there is no link... its liek saying i have a dog...and now he adapted and has pink fur....it doesnt make sense..because there are no links.

You're confusing me, which likely means that you don't understand the process being described here. Natural selection refers to the propagation of genetic characteristics which enable an organism to survive long enough to reproduce (or long enough to reproduce more times). The environment (and, as some of us believe, ultimately, God) decide which of these characteristics stay and which go. For instance, if having longer, more spread-out digits (fingers) and a larger area of loose skin between them gives me just enough added air resistance to survive a slightly higher fall from a tree, then I and others with this trait will survive a little longer and reproduce a little more, making this trait a little more common in the species. Eventually it will be the most common, and then those with even longer, more spread-out digits and even larger area of loose skin between them will begin to gain the advantage over others. Three thousand generations from now, my descendants have wings. Of course, I'm not saying that's how it happens exactly, but this is an illustration of what can happen with one trait.

once again..like im trying to say... you failed to provide a link, where is the link of when we didnt have wings, and did have wings?

I noticed you missed what he was driving at in previous posts so I want to clear it up so you understand before you reply again, Theonymic, I believe MetL is trying to say that because of the lack of transitional fossils it would appear as if the evolutionary process happened overnight (like his example with the dog changing/adapting colors all of a sudden over-night), which is of course illogical.

Theonymic wrote:

It has nothing to do with filling a gap between science and a literal interpretation, or making me sleep better, lawl. Given the lack of primate transitional forms into homo sapiens sapiens and our Biblical account, it seems the most plausible hypothesis to hold at this time. Stop being so antagonistic.

fossils are basically irrelevant to the theory of evolution...

They assist in the analysis of common ancestry. Without, we cannot accurately project it with any reasonably certainty.

And MetL, I am not a biologist. Don't ask me for every transitional form ever. I might find some website for you, but that's it.

- Theonymic (on Ethan's computer)

All fossils are transitional.

I am a staunch theistic evolutionist, and by the way, the intelligent design theory isn't Christian. It's deistic. The watchmaker analogy was deistic in origin I believe. David Hume (I think) does a good argument against it.

Mark wrote:

I am a staunch theistic evolutionist, and by the way, the intelligent design theory isn't Christian. It's deistic. The watchmaker analogy was deistic in origin I believe. David Hume (I think) does a good argument against it.

dude intelligent design is a major part of creationism... maybe i should have put creationism vs. theistic evolution instead


and prove that all fossils are transitional

Pay attention in science class.

Mark wrote:

Pay attention in science class.

honestly mark? tahts your best argument?! If you cant provide examples... then their is no proof. UI do pay ttention in science class alot.. I got an A on my evolution test.. but doesnt mean I beleived it.

MetLHed4GZus wrote:

and prove that all fossils are transitional

Because it's rather difficult to differentiate at exactly what point a new species arises. It's not like a line of descendancy is at species A for a time, and then species B for a time, and then at species C for a time, etc. It's rather a continual, gradual process by which these changes occur. A T-rex at one point of the Cretaceous period would not be the same as a T-Rex one million years later.

I've kind of given up on deciding which one I think is true. I think about it like this; was I there? No. Is there absolutely solid evidence for EITHER idea? No. Does it ultimately effect my belief of faith in God? No.

But whatever. Just my 0.02

I get dissed by other Christians for it, but I'm on the 'theistic evolution' side.

Well on the news the other day, something else was found to again change the evolution/scientific theories.... they change all the time... which leads to alot of confusion on my part.

two words: Ben Stein
one word follow up: Expelled

Go watch how science [funded by government money no less] ridicules, insults and discredits ANY PROFESSOR who believes in intelligent design in any way, shape or form.

I liken any and all evolutionists to being true misanthropes because you really have to truly hate humanity to believe in evolution of any kind. That means just what it says too.

Theonymic wrote:

MetLHed4GZus wrote:

and prove that all fossils are transitional

Because it's rather difficult to differentiate at exactly what point a new species arises. It's not like a line of descendancy is at species A for a time, and then species B for a time, and then at species C for a time, etc. It's rather a continual, gradual process by which these changes occur. A T-rex at one point of the Cretaceous period would not be the same as a T-Rex one million years later.

Tell me please, why the Webster's definition of EVOLUTION is "a constant state of change" and regarding evolution in Webster's it simply means "a theory of life" or something to that extent......but why mans definition in SCIENCE is so drastically different and holds zero basis in actual reality??

How come this factual question is always asked to evolutionists and always evaded with some retarded run around having to do with time, space, matter, banging stuff and the progress of a species?

NorthernAsh wrote:

Tell me please, why the Webster's definition of EVOLUTION is "a constant state of change" and regarding evolution in Webster's it simply means "a theory of life" or something to that extent......but why mans definition in SCIENCE is so drastically different and holds zero basis in actual reality??

I don't understand the question. Please be more specific.

Kheiron wrote:

I've kind of given up on deciding which one I think is true. I think about it like this; was I there? No. Is there absolutely solid evidence for EITHER idea? No. Does it ultimately effect my belief of faith in God? No.

But whatever. Just my 0.02

Completely agreed.

For those here that stated they believe in theistic evolution, I would like any of you to back that belief up with sound scripture. As a creationist, I pretty much can with the first chapter of Genesis being a big one. Any cross references throughotu the Bible are listed on the bottom of the page.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NASB

There is still a debate amongst learned scientists about this topic. Everyone on both sides have the same exact evidence, but they come to different conclusions. Darwinist evolution and intelligent design are all based on faith. And that faith is informed by your paradigm and world view. If your world view is from the perspective of Scripture, then you will look at the evidence and apply faith and come to one conclusion, but if your world view is based on humanistic ideals to the exclusion of a Creator, you are likely to come to a different conclusion especially if your goal is to disprove a Creator.

Theistic evolution assumes there was death, sickness, and decay prior to the fall of man in Genesis 3. And scripture says that it was the fall of man that brought all death into God's creation and put creation under a curse that includes sickness, decay, and entropy.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203&version=NASB

As Christians, we must decide weather or not we will submit to what is written in Scripture and allow that to inform our understanding of His Creation and of this universe. Thiis does not mean we dismiss the Scientific Method, which is merely a method of observation and study. Our conclusions must be based not only on the evidence, but also from our perspective and what we are told in Scripture. These things do not contradict one another and neither are they mutually exclusive. What we are told in Scripture are one more set of facts that must be applied before reaching our conclusions.