 |
|
Reply
| |
I took this from the APO forum. Even though it is addressed to a particular individual, I welcome any and all responses on the topic. Horse-guy, I am curious about your belief in evolution. You said you believed what most scientists believe. I went to university for a major in Biology, so while I am not yet considered a doctor, I have read my share of scientific journals, which are the documented studies of current research. I have also read much main-stream literature on the debate between evolution vs. creation vs. intelligent design. I might add that the debates posed by those that support creation is different than the debates posed by those that support intelligent design. I find this subject fascinating on either of the 3 sides and can be someone obsessed about new findings, etc. My first point is that "most scientists" do NOT share the same opinions. First of all, they are many many different branches to science.For instance, nuclear physics is vastly different from genetics. Most scientists specialize in their own field and will work with the scientist of any other particular field if their research crosses over. There are the ambitious ones that have multiple doctorates in many fields, but even those individuals can disagree with one another on the theory of evolution. My second point is based on the conclusions that I have drawn. Have you read Darwin's Origin of the Species? Did you know he doubted his own theory? He dedicated an entire chapter of the book to his doubts. One such doubt that he addressed was the human eye. He states: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." What this means is that if the human eye could not be broken down into parts that still served a purpose, then the basis of his theory, natural selection, is false. And guess what? Scientists cannot break the human eye down without destroying all functionality. Another interesting point I want to make is something I learned recently. The scientists of Darwin's time, including Darwin himself, still believed that non-living material could produce living material. In laments terms, they believed that if you left rotten meat out, maggots would form from the meat itself. They also believe that frogs formed from the mud they lived in and that mice came from moldy grain. It was not until 5 years after Darwin published his book that such belief in "spontaneous generation" was refuted, by a man named Francesco Redi. The reason this is important is because the basis of Darwin's book, indeed his very title was cemented in the belief of spontaneous generation! The final thing I would like to mention is what a theory is according to the Scientific Method, the basis by which all research is done. A theory is actually a collection of hypotheses bound together to encompass a wider domain of inquiry. An hypothesis is the statement made by a scientist to direct his research before he actually begins the research.It is his focal point and his prediction. He must state what he hopes to prove before he even begins. So you see, by this information, to say one believes in a theory is the equivalent of stating one believes in a question, it makes no logical sense. The theory of evolution as never progressed to a law because no scientist has been able to demonstrate an experiment that could be reproduced by anyone else. Gravity is a law because it can be reproduced over and over again; it is indisputeable.According to the scientific method, if the scientist's hypothesis can not be demostrated by reproduceable means he has two options: he can try and try again, like a sheep walking into a brick wall over and over again, or he can scrap it and try something else. What do you think? |
|
 First
Previous
2-7 of 7
Next
Last
|
Reply
|  0 recommendations | Message 2 of 7 in Discussion |
|
| This message has been deleted due to termination of membership. |
|
Reply
| |
| I've been comparing notes and examining the raw data. From what I can observe there are no contradictions. So much is subject to semantics that it would appear that there is insufficient evidence on both sides of the coin for a worthy debate. Then again, I was the culprit that stated earlier that a rose by any other name is still a petunia. Genesis 1 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. *** |
|
Reply
| |
Absuemezmerue, It seems we are talking about two different things. What I refer to is what is taught in the typical biology textbook found in any secular classroom. What you refer to I have heard discussed. I would sum it up at God used evolution as a tool of His creation. Over the years "evolution" has been so distorted and changed that not many people know what the original theory by Charles Darwin actually was. Evolution has become a catch-all term in the English language. Because evolutionists have not been able to support his original theory with actual proof that he himself stated was needed to back it up, they have been trying to change it to suit their purposes, which is basically to debunk the idea of the existence of a Creator, which was also Darwin's motivation. The argument is circular. His motivation alone is enough for me to throw the whole theory out the window as psuedo-science since that is not a credible motivation according to the rules of the Scientific Method. But I digress. There are indeed two parts to the theory of evolution according to Charles Darwin, but involution is not one of them. They are called macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Here are the definitions (found on Wikipedia): Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species. In other words, microevolution is what we know as adaptations - a cat grows longer fur to keep warm, etc. Macroevolution would be like the common house cat giving birth to a tiger after mating with another common house cat. Macroevolution has NEVER been proven to have ever happened. Everytime someone thinks they have found the necessary fossil evidence, furthur investigative scientific research proves them wrong. In order for Darwin's theory of evolution to ever become more than a theory, there would need to be an abundance of evidence to support it. And the same goes for saying that God used evolution as a tool in the Creation. The evidence must speak for itself. In contrast, the fossil evidence does support the existence of a Creator. The Cambrian Explosion would be the foremost example of this, in that almost all complex organisms suddenly appeared at the same time in the fossil record, with no previous evidence for any evolutionary stages for these organisms. Darwin himself found this as one of the principal objections to his theory and no supporter of evolution has been able to destroy that blockade. This scientists still cannot say what caused the explosion and why and evolution most certainly does NOT support it. Only one thing does, and many other scientists are reaching this conclusion without ever having first picked up a Bible. God spoke and the world appeared. Deal with it. I can go into detail on many of the topics here, so ask if you would like more information. |
|
Reply
| | 0 recommendations | Message 5 of 7 in Discussion |
|
| This message has been deleted due to termination of membership. |
|
Reply
| |
Absuemezmerue, I would ask that you elaborate on your above statement, as I am afraid I do not follow what you are infering with the statement: Two things one might look at are: Animals were salt water based, and Man was fresh water based, and since the Spiritual world can't be seen, one must feel and then answer what he has learned. And as for your post-script, I would ask if you believe in the complete accuracy of the Bible. Maps and math are guides, yes, but they can also be found erroneous. Do you say the same for the Bible? |
|
Reply
| | 0 recommendations | Message 7 of 7 in Discussion |
|
| This message has been deleted due to termination of membership. |
|
|
First
Previous
2-7 of 7
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to DEBATES