No "Real Science" = No Diploma!

Biologist, thanks for taking the time to answer the questions. Although they aren't any different than answers I have received from other people. I am curious why you didn't answer questions 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Perhaps they, too, have nothing to do with how animals evolved? Yes, I understand that you noted you will answer them later. I just assumed they would be the first questions answered since they are the ones that would provide a solid foundation for evolution.

 

I appreciate you answering them for me.

Interesting. This can apply to both evolution and Christianity. I am not speaking of mere faith. Rather the physical, what I consider "positive" evidence for Biblical support. I am wondering where their is "physical" evidence to support or confirm evolution.

 

For those interested, here is an article on defining 'science': http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6032.

 

I'm butting in because this is fun and I don't want Biologist to hog it all..

1] Is weird. Why trillions? We've found thousands of fossils, tens of thousands. We have a fossil record from which inferences can be made. We have enough. I just don't get the trillions thing.

6] That has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. That's abiogenesis. Evolution deals with changes in life after it's already here.

9] Is really about understanding odds, not evolution. More in my previous answer.

10] Another weird one. It's less about science than philosophy. Seeing a plan demands a frame that you view this matter through. That frame is that gee, two sexes, just like the bible says and exactly what we need to reporoduce. A different frame however and it looks like, gee, two sexes. Obviously a beneficial and advantageous mutation that's been wildly successful. It's in the bible? I guess we've made it so important culturally that we've even written it into our religion.

huh? There were always 'parents'.

Beneficial mutation is probably a bad term. Mutations are neutral. It's when a mutation confers an advantage and that's usually dependant on the environment.

 

I am posting this on two seperate posts because I can't fit it one one. YIKES!!!:lol:

Where or how can this be proven or is this a theory, merely speculation?

It would show that their is no creator. It would support that we had to evolve because their was no creator.

...but what brought them into existance?

Yes. I agree with this. Where, what, or who did these chemicals come from?

What are the odds of thousands upon thousands of complex organisms randomly and spontaneously perfecting themselves.

Where can I find a place where I can observe the evolution of these animals?

I am baffled by this. Not what you wrote, but rather how incredicly perfect and amazing the reproductive system is. Yet, I still am interested in what the odds are of such an incredibly, amazing, reproductive system evolving by chance.

The question shows that life, as we know it, is far more complex than we know. Gravity is beyond explanation. My reasoning for believing this question has everything to do with Evolution is because the very thing that caused the world to come into existance is also the very thing that caused animals to evolve?...or do you believe that the world and animals came about by different .........what?

This is intersting, indeed! So does Evolution stand alone? Meaning, does Evolution have no connection to any other aspect of life, including energy? It is basically in a class of its own. How evolution came about is completely seperate from its surroundings? It didn't rely on another energy, force, whatever to evolve. It just happened?

 

Out of curiousity, have you studied to physical evidence that backs the Bibles accuracy or have you simply studied "science". The Bible goes far a beyond a book with thousands of words. There is a lot of physical evidence to show the words of the Bible are accurate.

Alright. What word would be better to use? Perhaps we can substitue "design" with the word "make-up"?
How do you explain the precision in the make-up of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

I believe this is very specific. I am asking for one proof of evolution, not for a library of information.

Perhaps, Evolutionists should come up with a better way to study Evolution. You have not yet given a solid, factual answer to help me understand why Evolution is accurate.

 

These are not the same thing. You becoming a homeschool parent is a choice, as is everything you own and take pleasure in. Evolution wasn't a choice, unless it was the choice of a living creator. Evolution simply happened, correct?


EDITED TO ADD: YIKES! I do not like the way the second to the last sentence sounds. Rather, I should have typed ...
...Evolution didn't happen by choice, unlike Creation that required the choice of a living God. Evolution simply happened, correct?

 

Please do!!! I always enjoy your thoughts. They make me think!

Where is this record and has it been proven that they were fully functioning while in their transitional stage? If so, how did they survive?

 

Yes there is. My faith is the foundation for my belief but there is something behind that too.

Dawn I completely respect you and your opinions. I love the way you handle yourself. I appreciate that when you disagree with someone (or someone disagrees with you) you are kind in your debate. You don't try to shove people down to make yourself look better and you don't go back and delete half your comments. Anyway I thank you.

 

No he hasn't. And he has avoided some of those questions.

 

Correct. There were always parents and the offspring take on the genes or physical aspects of the parents. Assuming animals reproduce in the same time frame they reproduce now, then how would they have time to evolve when they are reproducing the same genes over and over again. Dogs still come out dogs and pigs are still pigs. When did species change species? When did all this evolving stop taking place?

 

dawninns, I am with you!!! This is fun!!! I actually have to get off and do some school work!!!
BUMMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:lol: :lol: :lol:
....but, I will be back!

 

Patty, thanks for your questions. It helped get the conversation off of the offense I caused by using the word, "narrow-minded." Truly, I didn't mean it to refer to specific people on here--only in general, that's how the view seems to me. Sorry for saying that offensively before.)

Dawninns and Biologist, thank you both for your thoughtful replies. You've put some time into this, that's obvious. This is a fascinating study in our family, and being able to "pick the brains" with someone of the other persuasion is a privilege. I hope you both hang in here a little longer with us, because, like Patty, I truly would like to know how someone who subscribes to the theory of evolution handles the logic of some things. So, once again, thanks for being here.

Ready for some more questions? (From someone who is ignorant to someone who is narrow-minded? Ha-ha! Just kidding OK? Well, maybe not totally kidding, for I admit ignorance on many things, so you're only too right, there.)

1. OK, if all that life required to get started was the correct elements, then why couldn't we put a horse fly, for example, into a blender, chop him into a thousand parts, and watch those parts become new fruit flies? The parts would have every element necessary for new flies--contrary to your first fly, who had to develop his own new combinations. (I know this question was previously addressed by Dawninns, who said it lies outside of the scope of science, yet this is precisely the point at which evolution loses credibility--at the beginning.)

2. Biologist says that we can't claim something to be true just because something else is not true. Often this is the case. But not always. The situation we are dealing with here is one exception. There are only two possibilities: either nature appeared out of nowhere and we made ourselves or a Creator did it. There are no other alternatives.

(BTW, evolution has come up with some preposterous ideas how Mother Nature could have done this.)

3. The next statement from Biologist presupposes that we want to survive. Enter lack of logic. (Yet another case of "science's" double-speak.) Science claims not to deal with the reasons behind things and that faith and ultimate causes lie outside the realm of science. Oh, really? It seems to me that they address things like this a lot: for example, they have a very strong faith themselves in the desire to survive as the driving force behind human emotions--love, hate, jealousy, etc.

God, according to them is not scientific, but the desire to survive is? That's faith, also. And I don't believe in it. I do not believe in the "Faith of Inherent Knowledge in Each of us to Know that Which Will Benefit Our Survival." I believe that no such thing exists. I believe that is a falsehood. I believe it is part of a false religion. Yet it is a tenant of modern science, because God has to be excluded. It's one or the other. Science does deal with matters of faith--just a different faith. Read it here:

But you don't limit yourselves to describing only that which can be observed. That's part of the problem. An obvious example is how you (not meaning you personally, but you in plural, as in "you-all") invent millions of years to construct a scenario to get all the fossils buried in the rock layers all over the earth, when many of them show evidence of rapid burial. Excluding God from your formulas limits you from even considering a world-wide flood. Not good science.

That statement of yours is not accurate. You do not limit yourselves to what you can observe. (Please, I'm not calling anyone a liar--just limited in your scope of what you allow yourselves to look at. Very limited.)

By excluding the idea of God from the very definition of science, evolution has, by definition, painted itself into a corner of illogical alternatives. Therefore, it allegedly, when it's convenient, refuses to discuss the origin of life. Think of it. So-called "science" refuses to look at ultimate causes. 'Say's they're outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Only because science has evolved itself to limit its own definition of what science is. Bad science, I'd say.

Is any one else glad we're all not in the same room right now? We'd probably be interrupting each other with questions and explanations and websites! What a joyous thing to have minds to explore these issues! Thanks, everyone for the fun! Yes, it's truly fun for us to probe great minds on these matters, even if, by definition, some of those great minds choose limiting definitions. *Smiling*

 

Yipes! It took me so long to post that I missed some fascinating conversation. 'Going back now to see what I interrupted. Yes, did we agree this was fun? We did agree. Yeah!

 

Wait one minture here. Did you not read the first paragraph on my post? I don't have infinite time out of my day to post replies to every question over a period of 16 hours assuming I recieved the questions right when she first posted them. Just be patient, I have a busy schedual.

 

I still have not had time to do justice to all the wonderful substance on both sides that have gone into this discussion, nor have I had time to study your link, Shelley. I plan to show it to my husband next week.

Since there are still quite a few unaddressed topics in this thread, I'd like to add another one. Actually it's not another one. I'd like to zero in on one specific one that particularly bugs me:


Faith in the inherent ability of the chemicals in each organism to make choices for survival and the desire to do that is a religion. This belief cannot be substantiated or tested. It is a faith system, and one I don't believe in. According to some people, though, modern science doesn't deal with matters of faith. This claim is either double speak or illogical thinking, in my humble opinion.

Their faith system is the only allowed to be studied. They exclude the other faith system.

I do not understand this contradiction on the part of otherwise intelligent, wonderful, well-meaning people. I'm glad we have some of them on this Spot so that we can probe. Someone help me understand this dichotomy, please. Thank you!

 

Hey, does anyone have that link to that YouTube clip that shows the scientific experiment that shows how the big bang happened.. you know, I think it is titled something like: "How to impress your friends and create things out of nothing without really trying?"

I can't seem to find anything on any scientific experiments that shows this theory... anyone... anyone....???

 

I have no idea but the popcorn look delicious!

 

I was being sarcastic, silly !

I just tried to show a photo that represented all the quiet folks that are enjoying this right along with you guys! Keep it up, this is cool!

(Passes the popcorn)

Back to the topic:
How come there "Seems" to be a basic scientific experiment that Proves" or at least shows how scientific principles, theories or laws work.... yet there is not one that shows how something is derived from nothing.... SOMETHING had to create it.

That's again why my personal beliefs are that Biologist is 100% correct on everything, except that the science simply proves HOW God did it. Thats' all.

It is like we are each others "Missing Link".

 

I agree that true science illustrates HOW God did it. But looking at fossils and deducing that whales once grew legs and emerged from the ocean as wolves is not true science.

(Not that you said it was. 'Just to clarify that a line has to be drawn somewhere between incredulity and credulity.)