ADHD Evolution
We are used to hearing that “natural selection” takes “over hundreds or thousands of years” or even longer, but apparently scientists are now suggesting that it has happened in “less than a year” according to an article on the male Blue Moon butterfly.
Does this mean that actually the time frame of millions and millions of years given to the evolutionary patterns of animals could be shortened, since, “the example in this study happened in a blink of the eye, in terms of evolutionary time"?
Of course I don’t actually believe in macro-evolution (although this would be a story of micro-evolution), but I can’t help but wonder what the science community thinks about such a fast evolutionary process, which goes against their own theory of the long process of evolution.
Does this mean that actually the time frame of millions and millions of years given to the evolutionary patterns of animals could be shortened, since, “the example in this study happened in a blink of the eye, in terms of evolutionary time"?
Of course I don’t actually believe in macro-evolution (although this would be a story of micro-evolution), but I can’t help but wonder what the science community thinks about such a fast evolutionary process, which goes against their own theory of the long process of evolution.
23 comments:
Micro evolution has long been understood, my friend.
When scientists went to the Galapagos Islands, they studied the finches, and realized that the size of the beaks coincided exactly with the size of the seeds that were in abundance.
Microevolution works in tandem with macroevolution. You Christians just want to nix and pix the evidence that fits into your stupid biblical worldview, that's all.
Tim:
Your grasp of Science is very, very poor.
As a concerned atheist, I am hoping that you, as a pastor to children, are not administering your appalling scientific knowledge to the children you teach.
If you don't know, get someone who knows. Don't teach kids the wrong stuff.
Beast,
As a Christian I am also concerned. I am not only concerned about children and adults as for their life today, but also in eternity. Even you, who I find seeming to desire to rebuttal me at every front, I remain concerned as to whether you will accept the same God which you so often explicitly claim to both hate and not believe in.
I am equally concerned as to what science has to teach the children of this generation as to that we have come from nothing and go to nothing, but are products of random chaos. From the Big Bang, to random cells, to monkeys, to mankind science teaches as if absolute fact, while all the while knowing they are not completely sure nor do they even fully understand their own theories as to what they assume to be what has taken place. They do not fully understand nor can they justly explain their ideas of evolution, but simply observe what they find to be micro and only try to piece together what they believe to be macro. This is not Truth, but merely ideas of what may or may not have actually taken place.
Like you said, “If you don't know, get someone who knows. Don't teach kids the wrong stuff.” – You don’t know that the Big Bang, man evolving from apes, and everything coming from random chaos is true, so please do not teach it as truth to children. Regardless of how close related or how science believes things to appear does not make it so. You said yourself that science is not based on absolutes, so how then can science say anything is truth? It can not, for tomorrow it may be a lie.
By your assumption, are you saying that children should not learn anything scientific?
Science teaches that everything can be falsifiable, but only when reasonable evidence is available to refute it. Is that bad for kids? I don't think so.
Science envisages and acknowledges its own flaws, and hence encourages us to seek out the truth in deference to facts.
Rather than accept any form of doctrine as absolute truth without questioning, Science advocates reasoning, evidence and rationale.
People who are prone to believe in faith are usually susceptible to fraudsters and other miscreants: We have people like Peter Popoff and Benny Hinns fleecing millions off innocent flocks of Christians who do not use an ounce of logic to even discern what they are listening to. Is this what you want to train your kids with? Ignorance and gulliability aren't virtues, but products of the same disgusting concept called "faith".
Since you talk about the Big Bang, this phenomenon has been derived from observing the ever expanding evidence. Logic goes that, continuous expansion ad infinitum is impossible, so at some point, big bang occurs. There is a rational explanation behind this. Science does not assume things out of nothing.
Random cells do mutate, and even a moron such as yourself can tell me evolution happens, just that you refuse to accept the timeframe that has allowed such a diversity of life to flourish and perish.
And when it comes to monkeys, the Christian argument that "oh so you descend from monkeys" is a freaking outrageous lie. Science teaches that Man shares a common ancestor with Apes, that's about it. DNA and fossils have proven this without a doubt (of course you can bring forth the Piltdown Man as a fraudulent example, except that it was a scientist who discovered the fraud, not a member of Ken Ham and his silly members from AnswersInGenesis".
Lastly, I am concerned because I know you are teaching, or administering to kids. I could have been in your shoes have I chosen to, but I refuse to indoctrinate innocent kids.
Like I said, don't teach science to kids. You obviously know next to nothing about Science.
Beast
Oh and one more thing, you mentioned about the "chaos" theory, so I assume you mean that life exists solely on chaos.
This is obviously not true. If you have bothered to read Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion", you would have understood that evolution throws random permutations of random DNA,and natural selection decides which DNA traits are allowed to carry on.
Like I said, you obviously know nothing. I have no problems with you teaching your bible trash to kids. Much as I dislike it, you have the obvious right to teach your filth and irk within church compounds, but don't teach science to the kids, because you are really too ignorant to teach Science.
Seriously and Sincerely
Beast
Have no fear Mr. Beast. I simply desire to teach children the Word of God as it is in black and white contained in the Scriptures. Eternal life found only in Jesus Christ is far more important than science.
As you claim with science, Christianity also tells people to examine what preachers, teachers, etc. say and believe, and to test it against that which they claim to use, the Bible. With prayer and meditation of Scripture many Christians could keep from being tossed too and fro with every wind of doctrine.
Interesting little dialog here. I love a good religion vs. science debate.
With regard to the original post, that article was a fascinating confirmation of evolution, not a "gap" or contradiction. If you noticed, the mutation and selection took place over 10 generations. Time is not really the measure of evolution, it's generations. Some selection takes place over a larger number of generations than others. Depends on the mutation.
10 generations of humans would take far longer than 10 generations of, say, mayflies, which have a lifespan of one day. We notice changes in the gene pool of humans in less than 10 generations. So I really don't see the big deal about the Blue Moon butterfly. It's exactly what evolution would predict would happen. If you were making a scientific prediction based on religion, or more specifically, Intelligent Design, the parasite problem would have miraculously cleared up in one generation.
It may take millions of years for thousands of beneficial mutations to be naturally selected in order to create a new species, or even a radically different version of the same species, but it doesn't take that long to make one change, like it did to these butterflies. The butterflies have not changed at all in appearance, they have just adapted to a parasite. This sort evolution takes place, as a FACT, all the time. It's happening right now with fruit flies and tuberculosis.
As for religious people teaching science, I agree that we should allow scientists to teach science, and keep the pastors out of the equation. They just tend to fuck up tiny minds with their superstitious nonsense. I don't suppose you would like to have a few scientists preach theology in your church would you?
Whether you "believe" in any kind of science (and I'm one who cringes when the word "believe" is used in the same sentence with "science" or especially "evolution". You believe in matters that have no facts to support them, for the simple reason that if there were facts, it wouldn't be belief, it would be knowledge. Science doesn't qualify for belief. But I digress) or not is irrelevant to whether it should be taught. Science is a progressive discipline. It depends on the current state of science, right or wrong, being taught to the current generation. How else will the mistakes of science be corrected, unless the wrong science is taught.? How can you correct a mistake if you don't know it exists? Choosing to teach science , or not, because of your religious beliefs is just simple mind indoctrination, nothing less, and is a disservice to the education of your children.
I don't think man came from monkeys either, and I don't expect anyone to teach that to my children. But you're failure to accurately teach evolution to your children is more harmful to their education, BECAUSE you believe something that's not true - i.e. that evolution means man descended from monkeys. It's all a big lie, and you're lying to your children when you pass that nonsense on to them. That's just wrong. Let them use what you concede is their God-given brains and figure it out for themselves. If science is wrong about evolution, then let them grow up and disprove it. Don't predispose them to believe in something because you don't understand it. That's shameful.
Oh. And I meant to ask this in the last post, but what does ADHD have to do with the butterflies, or evolution? Enquiring minds want to know.
Unless you're using a different definition for the acronym ADHD. I use Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
John P,
The title really isn't much, I sometimes just like to use an interesting title to draw attention, as in the use of ADHD here. According to ADHD, people seem to be constantly in motion, unable to sit still, and since the article appeared to note that “the example in this study happened in a blink of the eye, in terms of evolutionary time", I thought it would make a good title. So simply hyper, meaning extra fast, continually changing faster than the normal.
I do find it interesting that such a small posts would draw so much attention. I will try to reply per paragraph you wrote.
The article is the one which claims this evolution has taken place in a fraction of the time it should, or usually does. I simply wonder as to could it be possible that other evolutionary processes could have also taken place in such short time instead of the suggested hundreds, thousands, and millions of years I am usually given when talking to evolutionist... I understand I do not believe in evolution, but to me, the question is still a valid one when it is evolutionist that claim this evolution has taken place in an unusual short amount of time.
I understand what you are saying about generations, as to some species live longer than other species and such, but the thing is no evolutionist I have spoken with here at my blog or any other has ever spoke in generation terms, but always comparing hundreds, thousands, and millions of years for the process of evolution. I am not clear as to your comment, "If you were making a scientific prediction based on religion, or more specifically, Intelligent Design, the parasite problem would have miraculously cleared up in one generation." Because there is God does not mean there are no parasites, nor does it mean that He will remove all parasites, nor does it mean He created us with the ability to remove all parasites.
Honestly I have no problem with the butterflies adapting to a parasite. The problem I have comes with the idea of species developing into other species. But back to the topic, the article stated that the evolution of these butterflies developed in over drive. If the writer of the article or the person that said this is wrong, then please let me know. I am going by the article.
As for a religious people teaching science, I don't teach science. I simply teach what the Scriptures say. What about religious scientist? Some do not even wish for that freedom. Why can't scientists preach theology? As long as they use the Word of God, I can eat the fish and throw out the bones.
I find it interesting that when I say I do not believe in macroevolution, I am most often confronted with the thought that I simple discount all science. If I don't believe in the Catholic Mass does that mean I discount all of Catholicism? No, I still believe in the Trinity, virgin birth, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, etc. You write that religious people should not teach science becasue it may be wrong, then you say, "How else will the mistakes of science be corrected, unless the wrong science is taught?" So it is okay for scientist to teach what they believe, although they may be wrong, but the religious person cannot teach what they believe about science?
There is still not enough evidence to give proof to the suggestion that man and apes originated from the same species, or that a species of such ever existed. Has there even been found a complete skeleton or a skeleton over 50% of the so-called species we have all come from? I do not teach evolution in any count to children, I teach what the Bible say, that God created man of the dust of the ground and formed woman from his rib. So I could easily say when you teach children evolution that we originated from a common anncestor, that "It's all a big lie, and you're lying to your children when you pass that nonsense on to them. That's just wrong." Why can't we let them study and decide about evolution themselves instead of making sure they all get it during school? Why have them growing up in not believing in God simply because you choose not to?
Eternal life found only in Jesus Christ is far more important than science.
Yes. Science has given us, let's see.. electricity, light, fire, medicine, the ability to store and prepare food and water, build shelter, communicate, pass on knowledge, transportation.
The jesus stuff has given us, umm.. well nothing concrete except war and trouble.
Oh, science gave us concrete too.
Tim:
I think you are a lot outdated than you know.
Fossils of our common ancestors have been found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australopithecus%29
Complete skeletons are almost impossible to find, Tim, given the huge span of time we are talking about. In fact, I would be suspicious if a scientist claims to find a complete specimen of any fossil. That is because fossils can be notoriously hard to find.
The idea about Science is that, it has to be taught in schools because:
1. We need to teach Science to the next generation because it is imperative that we have a good pool of scientists capable of frontiering science in subsequent generations.
2. Students need to be acquainted with Science so that they are less vulnerable to cheats that may appear in many forms, from the spoonbender to the dastardly christian priest.
3. So called "mistakes" in science are not big mistakes, merely small tweaks in the grand scheme of things.
If you wish to talk about mistakes, religion makes far more mistakes. Just take the virgin birth for example. The word "virgin" in hebrew means "young woman". Many scholars are saying that the bible makes no allegory of Mary being a virgin at all.
4. There are evolutionists who still believe in God, although that is a very small minority.
Having said that, evolution, compared to your judean religion, has definitely hell lot of a more evidence than Christianity can muster. For all we know, biblical scholars can't even find evidence of the existence of Jesus, the purported Messiah of Christianity. The whole machinery we call Christianity was fronted by one man, Paul, centuries after the original purported Messiah was supposed to exist.
Lastly, I strongly believe that children should be exposed to science instead of religion. Science gave us the electricity, the medicine to live longer,and many of the amenities that we have today, while all religion ever does is swindle the masses into donating money and believing in useless doctrines.
Society needs more scientists, not ignorant pastors like yourself.
Regards
Beast
The article is the one which claims this evolution has taken place in a fraction of the time it should, or usually does. I simply wonder as to could it be possible that other evolutionary processes could have also taken place in such short time instead of the suggested hundreds, thousands, and millions of years I am usually given when talking to evolutionist... I understand I do not believe in evolution, but to me, the question is still a valid one when it is evolutionist that claim this evolution has taken place in an unusual short amount of time.
OK. This really does show a dearth of understanding. First, they are not called evolutionists. They could be geologists, anthropologists, zoologists, biologists, paleontologists, but there is no such thing as an evolutionist. That is a term of derision used by ignorant people, usually people who have been taught their science in church. Use of the term implies a lack of knowledge and understanding, and I'm sure you do not want to appear ignorant so,I'd suggest not using the term. You lose much credibility if you do.
Second, there is no rule as to the speed of evolution. As I said, it does need to occur over multiple generations, as evolution occurs in populations, not individuals. Therefore, in order for an entire population to change, by natural selection, multiple generations of changes need to be made, and passed on to succeeding generation, until the attribute that has changed is eliminated and the new attribute takes its place. Depending on the type of change, it might take a short time, or it may take a long time. In the case of these butterflies, it was a simple change that was observed; the suppression of the parasite by simple change to a gene. One gene. We see this type of evolution in medicine every day. I mentioned tuberculosis above. TB has mutated strains of the disease to be resistant to the antibiotics that previously worked to eradicate the disease. This has happened in your lifetime. That's pretty quick.
Homo sapiens (man) however, have evolved to our present form over a much longer time period, primarily because the changes are more complex, involving multiple organs and body structures, all adapting to mutations that are then selected if advantageous to our survival. Again, this must occur over an entire population, not just on individual. If this is difficult to understand, check out Talk Origins. There is a lot of good explanatory information there, and they know far more than me.
I understand what you are saying about generations, as to some species live longer than other species and such, but the thing is no evolutionist I have spoken with here at my blog or any other has ever spoke in generation terms, but always comparing hundreds, thousands, and millions of years for the process of evolution.
The main reason for that, I suspect, is that most evolutionary changes that we actually see and can measure with our eyes, rather than laboratory instruments, do in fact take long periods of time for the changes to take place, and for a layman, it's easier to understand the temporal allusions. As an example, look at the butterflies in your post. There is no outward change to the butterflies themselves. To the layman's eye, nothing has changed. What has changed is the ratio of males to females, something we would not notice until the parasite had actually succeeded in wiping out the species. The mutation that occurred was a change to a gene, that was either turned on or off to suppress the effect the parasite had on much of the population. Because that small mutation was advantageous to survival of the individual, it was naturally selected and passed on to that individuals children. Over the course of 10 generations, it spread throughout the population to the point that it affected the successful survival of that population. That is evolution at work, before your very eyes! No god needed.
I am not clear as to your comment, "If you were making a scientific prediction based on religion, or more specifically, Intelligent Design, the parasite problem would have miraculously cleared up in one generation." Because there is God does not mean there are no parasites, nor does it mean that He will remove all parasites, nor does it mean He created us with the ability to remove all parasites.
OK, what I meant by that was this. Science, in order to qualify as science, must be able to make predictions about what will happen in the future. Good science makes accurate predictions. Intelligent Design, which is touted as an alternative science, predicts that a designer would intercede in this parasite problem. If that was the case, why did this intelligent designer design the fix to work in 10 generations. If ID is true, it should have been fixed in 1 generation, not 10. (And please don't say that God works in mysterious ways, because all that does is put us back to not knowing. Science is about discovering knowledge, not praising mysteries)
Honestly I have no problem with the butterflies adapting to a parasite. The problem I have comes with the idea of species developing into other species. But back to the topic, the article stated that the evolution of these butterflies developed in over drive. If the writer of the article or the person that said this is wrong, then please let me know. I am going by the article.
No,the article did not say that. You misread that into it. What it said that was relative to what we usually think of evolution, it happened "in the blink of an eye". That's a figure of speech. Your reading of that was that evolution was somehow speeded up. I didn't get that at all from the article. It happened at the pace it should have happened, in a manner that one would expect it to happen, it just appeared to be fast compared to other evolutionary processes.
As for a religious people teaching science, I don't teach science. I simply teach what the Scriptures say.
But you teach it as an alternative to science. When you do that, you simply confuse and obfuscate, because the idea of evolution threatens your religious belief, that God somehow had a hand in the process, when there is no evidence for his hand.
In response to Beast, you said don't teach science as truth to kids, because you don't know. My point is that neither does your religion, but that is exactly what you are teaching to kids as "truth", without any evidence for it whatsoever. At least, with the scientific explanation, there is evidence to back it up. There is none for your version of "truth". And don't forget, science is always provisional, religion is not. That means that if new evidence comes down the road, science will change it's teaching. Religion will not. Proof of that is this very discussion. Your religion has been confronted with 150 years of research , evidence and facts countering your "truth", yet your religion refuses to even consider it. That's dogmatic.
What about religious scientist? Some do not even wish for that freedom. Why can't scientists preach theology? As long as they use the Word of God, I can eat the fish and throw out the bones.
Sorry, you lost me on that one. My point was that if you had a scientist come to church and preach on the origins of species, your pastor would not be too happy to hear about evolution. That's how we feel when religious people try to interject Intelligent Design and Creationism (same thing) in science classes at school.
I find it interesting that when I say I do not believe in macroevolution, I am most often confronted with the thought that I simple discount all science.
No. To the contrary, I think you're picking and choosing the science you like and that you don't like. If you are typing on a computer right now, certainly you accept all the science and technology that enables you to do that. You take medicines don't you? You realize that you are the beneficiary of science and medical research that relies on the assumption of evolution for that very medicine, (think vacines)yet you reject the assumption. That to me is hypocritical.
If I don't believe in the Catholic Mass does that mean I discount all of Catholicism?
Tell me how one "believes" in a ceremony that happens every day, throughout the world. Don't you accept it as fact, or is it a figment of one's imagination?
No, I still believe in the Trinity, virgin birth, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, etc.
Big deal. I used to believe in Santa Claus. Then I realized there was no evidence for him, so I stopped. I'm not being a wise ass. Think about it. These things you mentioned, you have no proof for, but you still believe in them. You had no proof that reindeer flew, that fat men in bulky red suits could climb down chimneys, and that elves made toys at the North Pole, yet you still believed it - until the veil dropped from your young eyes and you realized that it was, literally, nonsense. Same thing for the Trinity, virgin births, dead people coming back to life, etc. If you really believe those things, then you should still believe in Santa Clause.
You write that religious people should not teach science because it may be wrong, then you say, "How else will the mistakes of science be corrected, unless the wrong science is taught?" So it is okay for scientist to teach what they believe, although they may be wrong, but the religious person cannot teach what they believe about science?
Boy, you missed that point, big time. I'll try again.
Science is provisional, which means that at any given moment it thinks it is right. The most current consensus of scientists is usually what is accepted as the most plausible explanation. But since it is provisional, any scientist worth his salt will change his opinion, and the current consensus will also change, if new research comes up with a better explanation.
For that to happen, up and coming scientists have to learn the current consensus, the current science. Then they are educated with the base knowledge needed to go out and prove the current science, or further strengthen it, if that's where their research takes them. But if they are taught by their pastors that science is not ever certain, therefore it is always wrong, you'll never have anyone to disprove or prove science. You'll have no scientists, and you'll have no science. No technology, no TV, no automobiles, no electric plants, no hospitals, the list is endless.
So scientist don't teach what they believe, they teach what they know. If they are wrong, they are the first to say thank you for proving me wrong.
You do realize that there is a Nobel Prize waiting for that one scientist out there to disprove evolution, don't you? Evolution is not taught as fact because there are evil people conspiring to destroy religion. It's taught as fact because all the evidence deduced so far, in 150 years, says it's a fact. Not a theory, a fact. There is a whole confluence of disciplines - biology, genetics, anthropology, chemistry, paleontology, among many others, that all confirm on a daily basis the FACT of evolution. If there is one thing you clearly don't understand, because religion has closed your mind to it, it is just that. Evolution is a FACT.
There is still not enough evidence to give proof to the suggestion that man and apes originated from the same species, or that a species of such ever existed. Has there even been found a complete skeleton or a skeleton over 50% of the so-called species we have all come from?
It's not a "suggestion". We're not making this stuff up in the hopes that maybe we'll be able to prove it someday. Are you aware that chimpanzees and homo sapiens share something like 98% of the same genes? What do you call that? I call that damned good evidence that we came from a common ancestor. Now look at us. What animals do homo sapiens most clearly resemble? Turtles? No. Chimpanzees and other primates. Bone structure, organs, symmetry, you name it. They are our closest cousins.
I do not teach evolution in any count to children, I teach what the Bible say, that God created man of the dust of the ground and formed woman from his rib.
You get your science from a book written 3000 years ago by people who had absolutely no idea what science was, were extremely ignorant about the "mysteries" of nature, and attempted to devise stories to appease their appetites for knowledge, given their limited understanding of the world around them? And you reject the explanations of men and women who have spent the last 3000 years building on each previous scientific explanation until they reached the current ones? And you continue to take advantage of everything current civilization has offered you in a scientific and technological way? Please don't take this personally, but you, sir, are a hypocrite. Why aren't you living in a cave and tending to a goat herd? I don't mean to insult you, but that is the only logical conclusion to your beliefs.
So I could easily say when you teach children evolution that we originated from a common anncestor, that "It's all a big lie, and you're lying to your children when you pass that nonsense on to them. That's just wrong." Why can't we let them study and decide about evolution themselves instead of making sure they all get it during school? Why have them growing up in not believing in God simply because you choose not to?
Because none of it is true?
"BECAUSE you believe something that's not true - i.e. that evolution means man descended from monkeys."
I obviously stated very clearly, Tim:
MAN DID NOT DESCEND FROM MONKEYS.
Either you have poor comprehension skills, or you just can't read. So let me repeat this again:
Man and Ape share a common ancestor.
"Choosing to teach science , or not, because of your religious beliefs is just simple mind indoctrination, nothing less, and is a disservice to the education of your children."
Such words of stupidity can only come from you,Mr Tim.
I certainly wonder if people like you should leave in caves or something.
Do what you preach, Tim. Since you think science is a disservice to your children, quit civilization and live high up in the mountains. WE WON'T MISS YOU!!!
Good going John! I couldn't do better myself!
Now let's see how our hypocritical blog host rebutts this!
In all honesty, if I were him, I would close my blog, leave my family, and do what I preach, provided, of course, if I dislike science and love some 3000 yr old religion junk as much as Tim does.
As for me, I will take Science any day, any place, and any time.
Mb,
In your list as to what “Science has given us”, you have failed to first list what Jesus has given us. “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” So we see that He not only made all of the elements, He also made the people and gave them the ability to understand and present the list you have given.
--
Beast,
Funny I use the word evolution, and you always use the broad term science. The terms are not synonymous. And I realize there are “evolutionists” (and why do you use this term? John P says “That is a term of derision used by ignorant people, usually people who have been taught their science in church. Use of the term implies a lack of knowledge and understanding, and I'm sure you do not want to appear ignorant so,I'd suggest not using the term. You lose much credibility if you do.”) that do believe in God, for they know a Creator is necessary for creation to be.
I also find it most interesting that you try to call me out on “poor comprehension skills, or you just can't read”, yet it is you who has twice given me credit for quotes that in fact were from the writing posts of John P.
And in fact I know you would miss me, for you could hardly wait till my return to share your thoughts again with me.
--
John P,
You have written a lengthy and interesting post, but nothing in it has taken anything away from the FACT that creation has a Creator. Even through all that you believe concerning the origins of life, it did have a beginning, and that beginning was by God the Creator. Do I personally have all of the proof, maybe not enough for you, but that in and of itself does not discount that God is, it just means at this time there is not enough physically scientific proof for you for you to believe. You reject faith, therefore you believe not. Simply because one believes in Santa Claus which they cannot see and he is actually a lie, does not directly mean that God which we cannot see is also a lie. That’s not even good reasoning. For we have not seen the straight line of evolution either, so by your reasoning it must also be a lie. We have not seen the Big Bang, so it must also be a lie, and the list goes on. Remember we see the presents “Santa Claus” brings, but he is still a lie, so claiming we see the after effects of the Big Bang is not proof the Big Bang was.
You have no basis to say or believe “If ID is true, it should have been fixed in 1 generation, not 10.” What basis do you assume this? Because God has chosen to encode that which may take 10 generations instead of 1 does not discount ID in the least. Because what God does or has done does not match up with the ideas of man, both those which believe and those which do not, it by no means removes the Creator – it only shows man refuses to accept that which God is and has done, because he thinks he has a better idea.
Actually the idea of evolution does not removed the hand of God, for even some that believe in evolution believe in a God which began it. The difference is I believe that God created all as the Scriptures proclaim, whereas some claim God only started the process with a Big Bang. Both begin with God as a Creator.
And in 150 years of research they have never disproved God as the Creator, nor have they disproved the things of Scripture. In fact many discoveries have been in line with Scripture, not vice versa. Evolution has not problem saying God does not exist, but have no alternative answer as to how the beginning began.
They have scientist that pick and choose which science they like (i.e. agree or disagree with), so I have no problem with discounting evolution when I trust (exactly FAITH) the Scripture and God over man-centered ideas of no Creator. One is not a hypocrite by accepting some ideas of science and rejecting others, if that is the case, then there are plenty of hypocrite scientist too – for have a new idea in science would mean not excepting the old one.
When science finally discovers that God is real (for Scripture declares every eye shall see Him), how them will science explain to those in hell that sorry they were wrong? It will be a little too late then…
Tim:
Perhaps not too appropriate, I will admit, but when I use the term "evolutionist", I refer to biologists, geologists and other people who study the science pertaining to evolution.
Kind of like physicists using "God" to describe the hidden mechanisms of the universe, though not in the usual sense of the word.
And you will realize that most of the time, I refer to these people as "scientists".
Second point:In my third post, I already told you that man did not descend from monkeys. This you can certify yourself, if you do read my post. Do you need me to copy and paste it in its entirety???
Oh, as for missing you, don't worry, I have just found another christian blog as cannon folder. Close your blog, Tim. I don't need it. Do what you preach. Pack up your bags and go hitch a ride on some sheep, or hide in some mountains. Osama is waiting.
"And in 150 years of research they have never disproved God as the Creator, nor have they disproved the things of Scripture. In fact many discoveries have been in line with Scripture, not vice versa."
What horrendous rubbish!!! Which part of evolution is in line with scriptures? Scientists never ever claim that God created Earth in seven days! The bible certainly never mentioned microbes! Nor did Flintstone science ever been mentioned by any credible scientist.
Give me a break Tim. Your explanations are being shattered by the sec.
"They have scientist that pick and choose which science they like (i.e. agree or disagree with), so I have no problem with discounting evolution when I trust (exactly FAITH) the Scripture and God over man-centered ideas of no Creator. One is not a hypocrite by accepting some ideas of science and rejecting others, if that is the case, then there are plenty of hypocrite scientist too – for have a new idea in science would mean not excepting the old one."
Again, more insinuations from nothing.
Scientists don't "pick and choose". They use evidence to discern fact from fiction.
Science is anything but hypocritical. Religion is, and we can see it happening everywhere.
Oh, before you decide to lambast science again, have you packed your bags???
Beast,
That is exactly what I mean when I say evolutionist, but I guess Christians can’t use the term. Reminds me of another term that is improper for some to use, but others are permitted to. What a double standard.
Actually I am to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world, not go hide in a cave somewhere; unless everyone would like to meet at a cave after dinner for a Bible Study. :)
I’ve told you before, science and evolution is not synonymous. You can’t interchange them when ever you feel like it. The context of the 150 years of research was science, not merely evolution. And I am against evolution, not all science. Is this too hard for you to understand?
Enjoy, I am pretty much done with this post…
Very difficult.
Evolution is a branch of science. Its impossible to separate both.
After all, evolution involves using scientific methods for discerning facts.
With regards to the using of the term "Evolutionist", I grant you the benefit of doubt.
One more thing, you are not against evolution. You just want evolution to fit into your worldview.
Unfortunately, science doesn't work this way.
My last post as well.
While I'm inclined to offer a rebuttal to your statements, Tim, I think I'll pass at this point. My experience is that I will not convince you, even though I'm right :) , and I have so much else to do.
If you want a response, let me know, and I'll come back and give my comments. I get the impression you are done with the thread anyway.
Post a Comment