I just realized how Confanity can write so fast. Celtic Crazy says that he had this whole discussion with her earlier, so he’s probably just cutting and pasting the stuff he wrote back then. Sheeeesh! And here I’ve been working my tailbone off! (Trying to evolve that vestigial nuisance outta here, and hoping like crazy that those bowel-control muscles reattach somewhere, cause if they don’t it’s gonna be real embarrassing…….)
I’ve been going back trying to find unanswered questions, and here are a couple of mine:
Where does Scripture describe our world in a way that is not accurate?
How does the evidence of your senses confirm evolution?
When we’re talking about the beginning of life, there WERE no organisms to go through the Natural selection process—so how can evolution (life from nothing) be accomplished through natural selection?
Now to answer some of yours (and comment a bit–you know me!)
Haeckel did not fabricate any details in his embryo drawings; rather, he emphasized the details he was interested in and de-emphasized others. In effect, he drew a sort of caricature… That even this relatively minor departure from strictly objective accuracy caused Haeckel’s embryo drawings to be rejected by the scientific community, may be taken as a measure of how greatly scientists prize objectivity.
I can understand why he drew them the way he did. What I can’t understand is why they are still in textbooks, which should present the truth as best we know it.
Before the industrial revolution, there was genetic information for dark
and light moths.
During the worst days of pollution, there was genetic information for dark
and light moths.
Today, there is genetic information for dark and light moths.
In other words, the only thing that’s happened is that the relative
numbers of each have gone up and down.
Huh? So they haven’t evolved at all? So why do evolutionists like this example so much?
To move from the common ancestor between fish and man, to fish or
to man, required alteration, not genesis, of many structures that already
So where in a jellyfish or sponge (or whatever I am supposed to have evolved from) does one find the beginnings of a skeletal system? A brain? I think those things are going to need a genesis! And what is the probability of each one of these mutations? And what about the systems that are interdependent—both would have to evolve at the same time, which increases the odds astronomically.
And all you need is *one* such [organic] molecule to be capable of causing its own replication
Which, though theoretically possible, hasn’t happened yet, right?
Even if the chances are only one in a trillion, you’ve got a lot of material and billions of years for it to happen in.
And hey, you have faith that in billions of years, pretty much anything could happen. I could even change my mind!
evolution doesn’t *require* it [new genetic info]. Evolution is simply about change, not addition or subtraction
But you said that everything had evolved upward. I’m trying to decide how men could have evolved from a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion without something, somewhere being added. This doesn’t add up. (pun intended, yup.)
And back to a Bible question:
God wants his people to be dependent on him
You asked where it said this. There are so many places! Try Prov 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not to thine own understanding. And Psa 115:9 O Israel, trust thou in the LORD: he is their help and their shield.
Think about Abram and Sarah. After being told they would bear a son, they knew they were too old, so they took matters into their own hands and conceived through a maidservant, Hagar. Now that was acceptable in that society, but God didn’t want them to do it on their own—He wanted them to depend on Him.
The entire Exodus from Egypt is all about God’s people learning to depend on Him. It really wasn’t such a terribly long journey, but it was 40 years before God allowed them to enter the promised land. And all that time, they were supposed to be learning to follow Him. Needless to say, it’s a hard lesson to learn.
Oh, by the way, I looked up cherry-picking, and you are. We all do. We find the examples that best suit our position and quote those.
As for your jumping up and down on my evolution definition, I was only trying to explain that I don’t necessarily disagree with ALL of evolution. Natural selection definitely happens. Things do change. People have gotten taller on average, (and fatter, too, but that’s another story.) The part of “evolution” that I am contesting is only the part that says that all things evolved from simple organisms to more and more complex ones, eventually resulting in human beings. For simplicity’s sake, I wanted to focus on that. Don’t throw a bunch of natural selection examples at me, because they are NOT examples of simple organisms becoming more complex.
I believe that science enhances our understanding of God, and that it will always mesh perfectly with Scripture, allowing for language/translation difficulties, of course. I realize you will scoff at this statement, C, but remember that I consider evolution (of all life from nothing) to be a religion, as is humanism.
How do you verify those long-ago ages?”
-By having multiple independent researchers examine the evidence and see if they arrive at compatible conclusions.
Right. So if I have ten different people X-ray my mouth and verify that my upper left wisdom tooth has been removed, does that make it Truth? NO. It wouldn’t be true, because that tooth was never there in the first place. My point is that just because a lot of people look at the evidence and give a supposition, it doesn’t make Truth. They don’t have the background information that they need to make an accurate claim. They weren’t THERE!
Me: And if you can’t reproduce and verify the results, is it really science?”
Confanity: Your error is in choosing the wrong thing to reproduce and verify
You lost me. What are we supposed to be doing?
It is curious that Creationists who make this claim do not seem to worry about the putative unreliability of indirect observations when they are made by detectives, forensic scientists, or by archaeologists; apparently, only those indirect observations which have some bearing on the origin of the Universe are suspect
The difference, of course, is that there have been many provable observations in those fields (with archaeology being somewhat suspect, what with the dating inaccuracies ) which give a background for their conclusions. In the field of evolution, there is no pre-existing information that would make the claims consistent.
Me: I’ve spent some time searching, but they don’t seem to be available.”
C: -‘Hey Mabel, have you seen the dog?’ [Mabel looks in closet] ‘The dog must not exist, Dan. It’s not here.’
Funny. Here’s my version.—yes, we have a dog. –Where is it? –Oh, there’s a picture I drew of it over there…Why, of course it exists—see the picture?
The point being that if you’re going to base a claim of horse evolution on horse skeletons, those skeletons ought to exist. Where are they?
From the uneducated shiksa. (I ought to tell you how much that amused me. I’ve never been cussed in Yiddish before!)