Evolution

Shai Gar said:
Except religions like christianity can't grow because they already have their doctrine, which includes the statement that it's accurate and infallible. It retarded itself.
Click to expand...

So has evolution got it's doctrine. and has been the same theme since it's conception. In evolution there is underlying assumptions which color the interpretation of data. Two people can look at the same thing and see things totally different.

The bible claims to be accurate and infallible but I wouldn't say what man has done with it or understanding of it is, and that is the area of growth.
 
Doctrine can't be changed if it's infallible. Theories can. They're not doctrine.
 
Koba said:
Yes, I was basically saying that there is more than one theory and that maybe someone who thinks that the population of individuals isn't the unit of evolution is familiar with that particular theory.

If you are trying to say that the unit of evolution is the gene / population of genes then I disagree completely, but you would be perfectly in line with the "selfish gene" version, which is all the rage right now. I'm more in the "molecular neo-darwinism" line.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, and no I dont think the unit of evolution is the gene, I agree with the theory of the population being the unit of evolution.

nonlinear said:
The DNA molecule is a good storage for information, but it most likely has not been the first information storing molecule, so it cannot be considered the only unit of evolution.
Click to expand...


You're right; the mitochondria and plastids also contain genetic information. The endosymbiosis theory states that they originated from prokaryotic organisms like proteobacteria and cyanobacteria.


BlackKnightKisses said:
Selective breeding and survival of the fittest are no proofs of evolutionist theory it may be a base on which the theory is built but it is not evidence! In selective breeding both mother and father genes are in the offspring it hasn't mutated from the parents but is a combination. In survival of the fittest it just tells me the environment has an impact on numbers it doesn't prove adaptive mutation. Scientific experiment that create mutations in the lab are just that and shows me it takes someone with a brain to CREATE it. Mutations in nature are often sterile or rejected when it comes to mating the likely hood of passing mutation from generation to generation to the extent needed to achieve the diversity of kind we have makes evolution an absurd theory for the origin of life.
Click to expand...


I agree that selective breeding isn't a good basis for 'proof' of evolution. Natural selection is, though. Like I said before, natural selection gives a reason for evolution. I don't want to keep repeating what has been said before but there is a reason to why we choose the mates we do.

In the case of the moths, there was no mutation in the population for them to adapt. Mutations happen all the time; it is just a matter of whether or not it affects natural selection or not.


Stone said:
Well it seems like a pretty good start! better than a magic being at the least.

Yes a lot of mutations are rejected but they happen fairly often (just look at cancer), most infact will be rejected but every now and then there are mutations that turn you into a sex bomb (or at least a bit more successful than your peers) .
Click to expand...

....exactly.
 
Why would we have phylogeny taxonomy if there were no evolution?
Its a systematic progression (if you look at the domains and kingdoms) From archea through animals.

According to creationism the Earth is only 6000 yrs old. This is impossible based on geological evidence and gradualism. It took billions of years to form some of the land forms and oceans that exist today. Creationism is just not logical, by itself.

Aoiluna is right :)
 
Last edited:
Shai Gar said:
Doctrine can't be changed if it's infallible. Theories can. They're not doctrine.
Click to expand...
Doctrine is mans interpretation of the data so as it is an interpretations doctrine is fallible. Theories are mans interpretation of data and as interpretations Theories are fallible. Theory comes from the same root word as theology.
 
britta_water said:
According to creationism the Earth is only 6000 yrs old. This is impossible based on geological evidence and gradualism. It took billions of years to form some of the land forms and oceans that exist today. Creationism is just not logical, by itself.
Click to expand...

Geological evidence of gradualism is disproved by the fossil record. Fossil would not survive gradualism to be preserved need a catastrophic event to entomb them.
 
Last edited:
Astronomical observations back the bible that long before science told us was the case that the universe is expanding. Since the universe is constantly moving the underlying assumptions of speed of light being as a constant in measurement of time are undermined. In fact the speed of light and light itself is not constant and can be bent, distorted & slowed.
 
The "Are evolution and Christianity compatible" question is silly. Of course a particular interpretation of evolution is compatible with a particular interpretation of Christianity. Since I'm an atheist I'm not too interested in talking about what Christianity is, but I understand why Christians are, but I am interested in talking about evolution is. If these are the questions, we probably should diverge into two different topics, then come back with our findings about what Evolution and Christianity are. That's pretending that we would eventually agree.
 
BlackKnightKisses said:
Doctrine is mans interpretation of the data so as it is an interpretations doctrine is fallible. Theories are mans interpretation of data and as interpretations Theories are fallible. Theory comes from the same root word as theology.
Click to expand...

I would say man's interpretations of religious scriptures are far more fallible than man's tentative explanations drawn from observable evidence. Science is the least imperfect system for understanding the universe that man has at his disposal. Intuitive and subjective knowledge cannot compare to the objective knowledge drawn from scientific methodology. And it is the fact that theories are tentative and subject to refutation with the discovery of new evidence or a better explaination that makes science superior to intuitive, religious, spiritual, and mystical forms of knowledge which generally claim to attain information from an absolute but unverifiable source. So a theory is in no way the same as theology. One allows for refutation and the advancement of learning and the other does not.
 
BlackKnightKisses said:
In fact the speed of light and light itself is not constant and can be bent, distorted & slowed.
Click to expand...

This is of course slightly off-topic, but I feel I must comment on this one. I know very little about physics, but I believe what is said above to be inaccurate. I have the picture from relativity that individual photons must always travel at c, the so-called speed of light in vacuum, and may not travel at any other speed. Photons travelling through a medium are absorbed and re-emitted by electrons, and therefore a beam of light might not move at c on a macroscopic level. And near powerful gravity fields the space-time itself is curved, not the photons. So for photons c is a true constant.
 
Last edited:
BlackKnightKisses said:
Geological evidence of gradualism is disproved by the fossil record. Fossil would not survive gradualism to be preserved need a catastrophic event to entomb them.
Click to expand...


Actually, you have it backwards. Fossil records support gradualism AND evolution. We have found fossils millions of years old, they have certainly survived gradualism and many catastrophic events. fossils are formed in many different ways such as Permineralization, Carbonization, desiccation, asphalt, amber, and freezing. Through these processes, plants, reptiles, mammals, parts and or bodies are well preserved and definitely survive gradualism.
 
britta_water said:
Actually, you have it backwards. Fossil records support gradualism AND evolution. We have found fossils millions of years old, they have certainly survived gradualism and many catastrophic events. fossils are formed in many different ways such as Permineralization, Carbonization, desiccation, asphalt, amber, and freezing. Through these processes, plants, reptiles, mammals, parts and or bodies are well preserved and definitely survive gradualism.
Click to expand...

Explain how complete fossils that the form of the soft tissue can be made out have appeared straddling various sedimentary layers that evolutionist claim to be laid down over millions of years. it is obvious the settlement was laid down quickly.
 
nonlinear said:
This is of course slightly off-topic, but I feel I must comment on this one. I know very little about physics, but I believe what is said above to be inaccurate. I have the picture from relativity that individual photons must always travel at c, the so-called speed of light in vacuum, and may not travel at any other speed. Photons travelling through a medium are absorbed and re-emitted by electrons, and therefore a beam of light might not move at c on a macroscopic level. And near powerful gravity fields the space-time itself is curved, not the photons. So for photons c is a true constant.
Click to expand...

Do your research this has recently been questioned by science
 
Satya said:
I would say man's interpretations of religious scriptures are far more fallible than man's tentative explanations drawn from observable evidence. Science is the least imperfect system for understanding the universe that man has at his disposal. Intuitive and subjective knowledge cannot compare to the objective knowledge drawn from scientific methodology. And it is the fact that theories are tentative and subject to refutation with the discovery of new evidence or a better explaination that makes science superior to intuitive, religious, spiritual, and mystical forms of knowledge which generally claim to attain information from an absolute but unverifiable source. So a theory is in no way the same as theology. One allows for refutation and the advancement of learning and the other does not.
Click to expand...

Only in your opinion
 
BlackKnightKisses said:
Only in your opinion
Click to expand...

Putting all antagonism aside, and for the sake of friendly curiosity, I would love to know how you have come to your beliefs about evolution and creationism. Do you feel that man's interpretation of scripture is superior to knowledge derived from science? How do you see evolution playing into God's plan? What experiences in your life have lead you to come to these conclusions?

Please, as a person who feels a great affinity toward science because of its objectivity, I find it difficult to understand how people can have such certitude for beliefs based on faith. I would genuinely like to know where your conviction comes from.
 
Last edited:
Satya said:
Putting all antagonism aside, and for the sake of friendly curiosity, I would love to know how you have come to your beliefs about evolution and creationism. Do you feel that man's interpretation of scripture is superior to knowledge derived from science? How do you see evolution playing into God's plan? What experiences in your life have lead you to come to these conclusions?

Please, as a person who feels a great affinity toward science because of its objectivity, I find it difficult to understand how people can have such certitude for beliefs based on faith. I would genuinely like to know where your conviction comes from.
Click to expand...

I make no pretense I have a bias. Unfortunately evolutionist can't see their own bias. I love science very much! Science is not my problem. evolution theory on the other hand is not science. It is atheistic dogma just read the humanist manifesto. The interpretation of scientific data by evolutionist is not objective but subjective obscured by their belief there is no God. Science is used on both sides to support argument and can not be claimed by evolutionist saying "we have science and you hold to a myth" this is offensive and condescending.

"Do you feel that man's interpretation of scripture is superior to knowledge derived from science?" I don't look to man's interpretation. I see the discoveries of man and than see the bible had already revealed it. eg. Just like the world is a sphere the bible revealed it way before Columbus. Just like the heavens are being stretched out like we are finding out in science today. and many more things that science is well behind in.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top