How we as humans came to be

[scomman]

Firstpusk

I am sorry to disagree with you again. The quotes were used to point out that even the people who teach evoultion have doubts in it as a theory and as a law. Another one for you

 

Huxley one of the defenders of Evoultion once was asked on a national televised debate why many scientists were quick to jump on the evoultion bandwagon and the response was " It is easy to believe in Evoultion because it denies the existence of a Creator who wants to be intimately involved in the lives of His Creation" Emphasis is mine.

 

And the last time I looked at a Encyclopedia it was called the Law Of Gravity and not the theory of gravity. Evoultion is called the theory of evoultion not the law of Evoultion.

[firstpusk]

Scomman,

 

I expected disagreement from you. When you talk of terms like theory, they have a different meaning in a scientific context. Theory means that it is a well established explanation for the observe phenomenon. That is why both gravity and evolution are referred to as theories.

 

Quote mining does not address the validity of the theory. Especially when the statements are as hopelessly out of date as the ones you are using. In order look at them. The first is Darwin. When he wrote the Origin of Species, we did not have genetics, DNA analysis or a myriad of other methods of determining the inter-relatedness of species. He was brilliant no doubt, but was a trailblazer and as such sure to get some things wrong. It has become clear that instead of steady change there are long periods of stasis puntuated by periods of evolution. The pattern is not even.

 

This is what the second quote deals specifically with this issue. It has been taken out of its original context. The two gentlemen did not mean to endorse creationism in any way. Go out and read the original source. Creationists pick these gems to imply that the authors are near denying evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. The authors weren't denying evolution. They were saying it does not proceed as Darwin first envisioned nearly a century and a half ago. I have a question for you. Have you read the original book, article or speech in entirity for any of the quotes you have given? Or did you just lift them from some creationist website?

 

The next two are both dead men also. Wald died in 1997. I am not sure how old the quote is, but it could easily be 20 or 30 years old. The other is not even worth mentioning. 1925? Have you any idea how fast the science is changing?

 

The folks lifting these quotes know the context and understand the ethical implications of what they are doing. It is unethical for them to do this. I have read both of the books you mentioned as well as many other creationist books and articles. I understand the basis and arguments for their position. You can not say the same of evolution.

 

Go read the links that were provided by Merlyn. Educate yourself about Denton. They will give you an idea of what I am talking about. What got me started in this thread was Rooster7 deciding he had to question the faith of someone who can dispassionately look at the evidence and accept evolution. I don't think he has a right to say that without understanding the theory. And I don't think it is right for you to quote other peoples' work without at least making sure you understand the original context.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

And the last time I looked at a Encyclopedia it was called the Law Of Gravity and not the theory of gravity. Evoultion is called the theory of evoultion not the law of Evoultion.

 

No, it's still the theory of gravity (and "Newton's Law" is simply WRONG - it doesn't work for large masses or speeds near c). A "law" is really just another term for a theory, sometimes just part of a theory that describes a direct relationship, like "f = ma" or "e = mc^2".

[scomman]

No matter how much we discuss this it will still be a theory until there is a complete fossil record found of a species in evoultion. I will not and cannot accept it until that time. I have a problem when they find fragments of a bone and skull and say that this was the bones of a early homind. I grew up in Nebraska where there are stories of the hoax played on a Evoultionist back in the 20's. I know we are known as the Cornhuskers but I think the slogan should be prove it.

 

As for quote mining Yes I use quotes because if you put the entire book online and use it in context it tends to run into copyright violations.

 

Everyone uses the same passion in defending Creation and Evoultion as they do in defending their faith. Why?

 

Because it takes the same amount of faith to defend it as to defend Creation by a God who loves us.

 

 

[Rooster7]

Firstpusk,

 

What got me started in this thread was Rooster7 deciding he had to question the faith of someone who can dispassionately look at the evidence and accept evolution. I don't think he has a right to say that without understanding the theory.

 

In regards to understanding the theory, I will be the first to admit that I don't understand the theory of evolution. There are so many suppositions presented that are not logical to me. Nevertheless, you continue to misrepresent my thoughts and I do take offense. I have no problem with a "dispassionately look at the evidence". Furthermore, if someone were convinced that evolution was valid via the facts and logic, then I would not question their faith or intelligence. For the last time, try to understand the gist of my original comments. It's really not that difficult especially for someone with obvious intelligence such as yourself. I simply said, I would question the faith of someone who insisted on the validity of evolution, because they felt God's power has limits, and He was incapable of creating the world in seven days.

 

On the other hand, if someone believed that God used evolution as a means, not because he had to , but because he chose to do it in this manner, then I can accept that explanation from someone who professes faith in God. However, I would still disagree with evolution as a theory.

 

And I don't think it is right for you to quote other peoples' work without at least making sure you understand the original context.

 

I am truly blown away by this comment. Or as the AOL weenies might say, "I was ROTFLOL!" The irony is incredible. Immediately after misrepresenting my thoughts for a second time, you have the nerve to criticize someone else for supposedly quoting someone out of context. UNBELIEVEABLE!

 

Firstpusk, it's difficult to believe that your misrepresentations are not intentional. You apparently do a lot of reading, at least on the topic of evolution. For someone that is so well read, I cannot understand why you do not grasp my simple point. GOD is not bound by anything, except His own character. Do I personally believe in evolution? No. Could God have used evolution? I suppose it's possible. Did he have to use evolution? Surely we can agree that this would be a false premise. Okay, I'm off my box.

 

Fboisseau,

 

As for creationists, that refuse to acknowledge what science has discovered and proven, why did God create that evidence?

 

Your question assumes that all of the so-called evidence supports evolution. It also assumes that evolutionists have interpreted all of the evidence properly. In other words, your question is tantamount to asking someone, "So, how long have you been cheating on your wife?" It's not a very fair or reasonable question. In short, obviously creationists do not view the evidence as supporting the claims of evolution.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

No matter how much we discuss this it will still be a theory until there is a complete fossil record found of a species in evoultion.

 

There ARE. TO quote Handy, "READ A BOOK!"

 

[fboisseau]

Rooster7,

My statement was made because, I see three main groups in this agruments. The first group are the evoultionist that accept the science without question given all it holes. The second group is the creationists, who as a whole tend to dismiss the evidence for evoultion and will only accept a literial reading of Genesis. The last group are people who accept both explanations because they see the hand of God in the evidence for evoultion. I do have more of a problem with the pure creationists because they will ignore or discount all the evidence for evoultion out of hand just because it conflicts with Genesis, instead of trying to workout how both can be true. And since most if not all of this evidence is based on the proven laws of the universe, if it wrong we could not exist. The evoultionist tend not to believe in the Bible at all and if they do they fall in some flavor of what I beleive. For those who are more interested in what I am talking about I suggest you read the books by Gerald L. Schroeder. He does a better job of reconciling the two beliefs then I ever could do in this forum.

[firstpusk]

Rooster7,

 

I can understand your annoyance. I reread your original post and can understand the position you are taking. No one hear said God had to use evolution. I am simply saying the evidence is clear He did. If you were simply setting up a hypothetical, my profound apologies. I did not respond to your complaint because you ignored my hypothetical situation and complained about being taken out of context. My comments indicated that your comments would be problematic in a very specific context - questioning the faith of a boy because he accepts the evidence for evolution.

 

I don't agree with your specific theological position and your interpretation of scripture. I come from a different tradition. I can accept your position and have studied that position. I had to because a number of my inlaws agree with you. I have also studied the science. My point was simply it is not the job of a scout leader to convert his charges to his particular religious belief. Instead, he is to respect that belief and not question their faith because he does not agree with them.

[firstpusk]

Scomman,

 

When I talk about the context of the quote, I mean what were the authors trying to say. Creationist websites frequently grossly misrepresent the views of scientists when they are quoted. I am saying that it is your responsibility to read the original document to grasp that meaning and ensure you are not also misrepresenting the author.

 

You are claiming that those who teach evolution doubt the theory. In the original context, that is not what they are saying. Instead, they are claiming that evolution operates differently than was originally thought. Finding a quote does not address the mountains of evidence supporting the theory. It only allows you to ignore the evidence.

[scomman]

To answer a Question or Comment I DO READ BOOKS I have a degree in Pastoral Theology and a minor in Counseling. My comment is this when they find a fragment of a skull no bigger than my palm and another bone fragment and claim it is a new hominid they are reaching for something. Most books on Evoultion I have read shows what they think it looked like.

 

Also on another note I will not be posting to this thread after this comment nor reading it. I feel that is discussion is starting to degenerate into a flame war .

[Rooster7]

firstpusk,

 

I respect the right of everyone, not just Scouts, to believe in whatever one chooses to believe in. However, I do not necessarily respect what they believe.

 

I respect a parent's right to shelter their children from others and their beliefs, if that is the parent's desire. I also respect the right of any individual, adult or child, to request others to refrain from preaching to them (or teaching them). If someone has heard all that he's willing to hear, his freedom should be respected and no one should attempt to force his or her views on that person. However, if an adult and/or child is not making this known, I feel there is nothing wrong with someone sharing his/her beliefs, whether that be in or out of Scouting. It is incumbent upon the parent or child to make their wishes known.

 

You seem to be irritated with creationists that refuse to listen to the other side. I understand. Yet, you don't seem to recognize that this arrogance extends to both sides. Many evolutionists speak as if the theory is fact. Yet, there's nary a blush if any of the so-called facts are made suspect. Moreover, one can build many different theories around the same set of facts. Ask any detective. Until one can identify the person pulling the trigger, a smoking gun is merely a smoking gun. It does not prove anything. While you may have a point, in that, some creationists are not willing to listen - How is this different among evolutionists? They've made up their minds and nothing said by me or anyone else will change their minds. They're just as stubborn and even more arrogant.

[Quixote]

I realize i'm late to the party, but didn't "modern science" once hold the theory that the earth was flat and it was actually proven to be more spherical? Scientific theories are great until they are changed with new and improved science. And didn't the universe revolve around the earth, then the sun, then...

 

Would be interesting to know what scientists will be saying 1000 years from now about darwins theory of evolution - will it be on the flat earth side of the line or the Newton side? I dare say that Christians will still believe that God created man (not sure how or what time line, but I have faith that He did).

[Rooster7]

Amen. On that note from Quixote, I will bow out of this debate.

[firstpusk]

I don't think you can blame any flat earth talk on science (see link below). The sun revolving around the earth seemed like more of a theological concern. As for Darwin, he has held up pretty well so far. And even if he has been proven wrong on small points, the theory he proposed is better supported than ever. I think your wish that he will someday be discredited is a pipedream.

 

The Myth of the Flat Earth

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/flat_earth.htm

[Quixote]

Firstpusk,

 

My point, which you obviously didn't get was that man has long tried to explain his universe and the "absolutes" he discovers keep getting changed as he discovers more "absolutes". Evolution in action i guess.

 

As for wanting Darwin to be discredited, i don't see where in my post you got that from - it really doesn't matter to me on what side of the line he ends up being because i'm secure in my faith.

 

YIS

Quixote