Quoted: They are closed minded. They will not open their minds to possibilities. I bet you would find some people on here that would argue that the earth is flat. KTHXBAI!

I have been insulted!  This is a clear violation of the first rule of this thread.  Site Staff, please act accordingly.

Thank you.

Quoted: OK, here are the ground rules. <blah, blah, blah, blah> If anyone has any genuine questions I will attempt to POLITELY answer them.

If evolution is real, then explain Jane Fonda riding around in a vegetable oil powered bus.

Looks to me like Devolution in full flower.

Quoted: Quoted: The Bible explains why, science explains how. Sgat1r5 I completely disagree with you, my friend. But this discussion is not supposed to be about religion, so I will not explain why.

There is no way I can talk about this subject and leave religion out of it, so I MUST bring it into the conversation.

And even thought I follow science I am also smart enough to know that it doesn't answer all qeustions.

And regardless of how we got here, God has always been thereeason WHY we are here.

In other words, we as humans tend to focus on small details that mean little while missing the whole picture.

So of us do this thru out our whole lives.


SGat1r5

Quoted: The Bible explains why, science explains how. People that reject science are often rejecting all the tools God has given them. Sgat1r5

Oh no ! Sgtar15 made sense !

You make some great points SteyrAug, but you missed one:

Haven't read it in it's entirety, but somewhere, the Bible says the God made man in His image.
So we have proof of man's lineage, at least back a few iterations to the supposed missing link right?
So it's my belief that all the pictures of God are wrong....shouldn't he be stooped over a little more and maybe wearing a loin cloth?  How do Christians reconcile the fossil evidence we have of man and his capability (or lack of it) of speech and language, and hence the ability to exchange complex thoughts....as the Bible seems to indicate Adam and Eve did?  Or is there some magic wand explanation that explains away the evidence our forefathers were unaware of when they wrote the Bible?

Hell, I'm still wondering where that village came from, where Cain went to take a wife.  Wasn't he second generation human being?  Where the heck did all those other people come from?  

And somehow, it takes a stretch to believe in evolution.  All it really takes is a massive amount of time and a hostile environment...which we know existed.  To believe in the Bible, we need to believe in talking cavemen, talking snakes (ie Genesis) , a multitude of miracles observed by people less intellectual than today's trailer park crowd, the ever-changing explanations the believers must put in place to explain day-to-day discoveries we make of our fossilized past, and the physics-challenged excuses put in place to describe the inconsistencies in the Bible.

I'm pretty sure if I grew up in a sterilized world, and two guys came to me with both of these stories, that religion would appear to be the Ponzi scheme.

- Checknsix

Why did evolution stop?  Why are there none of these mutations walking around today? It does not make sense. Where are the hundreds of millions of skeletons of all the stages of these mutations? How could you only find one or two? That is absolutely bizarre and not scientific at all. I have never seen any fish with feet. Hell I have never seen a skeleton of a fish with feet either yet you can find skeletal remains of creatures that are millions of years old that look exactly the same they do today. For a scientific theory it is sorely lacking evidence. If you don't beleive in God I guess you have to take whatever you can get.  

Quoted: It is NOT a coincidence that tens of thousands of professional  biologists, biochemists, geneticitsts, medical researchers, with PhD's at top universities, research institutions and pharmaceutical and biochemical companies all support the theory, and (in general) those who oppose it do not have any advanced degrees in those fields, and do not work at top universities, companies, etc.

PhD's are not superhuman in any way including intellectualy.  They make mistakes, blunders and other amusing follies every day.  The difference between a PhD and a Master's degree is just a little more time and funding.  The same between a Master's and a Bachelor's.

Yes, many top "experts" in biology etc. do believe in the Theory of Evolution.  But when this is the only theory taught in this field, how else does one one get to the top?  Certainly not by disputing modern biology's most fundamental belief or religion.

 

Quoted: Why did evolution stop?  Why are there none of these mutations walking around today?

It hasn't.

It does not make sense. Where are the hundreds of millions of skeletons of all the stages of these mutations? How could you only find one or two? That is absolutely bizarre and not scientific at all. I have never seen any fish with feet. Hell I have never seen a skeleton of a fish with feet either yet you can find skeletal remains of creatures that are millions of years old that look exactly the same they do today. For a scientific theory it is sorely lacking evidence. If you don't beleive in God I guess you have to take whatever you can get.

Since most bones turn to dust very few get fossilized.  and the fishes fins are the it's feet.

I suggest you study this subject some and take a biology class.

SGat1r5

Quoted:........... how else does one one get to the top?  Certainly not by disputing modern biology's most fundamental belief or religion.

Actually, going AGAINST the grain IS how Darwin got to the top.





Sgatr15

Quoted: You make some great points SteyrAug, but you missed one: Haven't read it in it's entirety, but somewhere, the Bible says ....... <Blah, blah, Christian-hating blah.>

Another guy that can't read the rules of the thread.

This was not supposed to be a debate about religion.

Man!

For guys that are always spouting about how much you hate to see religion mentioned in General Discussion, you sure can't seem to quit talking about it.

Quoted: I suggest you study this subject some and take a biology class. SGat1r5

I've taken plenty of biology classes.

Your comments are still wrong.

Quoted: There are so many errors in this post I don't know where to start. Can I suggest a website that gets 1,000,000 hits a month.www.answersingenesis.org/home.aspx Please spend some time there before you try to explain creationism to us again, there is something like 35,000 articles on that site. Look up some articles about  fossil dating and find out that many of those dates were decided on BEFORE any dating methods were thought up. Also, those dating methods Always use assumptions to come to their conclusions, assumptions that have been proven wrong many times. Also, you don't understand the evolution if you think it is non-religious, Erasmus Darwin, Charles' grandfather and the true inventer of the theory sure thought it was.

There are no errors.

I was NOT explaining creationism.

I addressed your notion that Evolution is a religious issue.

I addressed the dating issue as well.

Perhaps you should actually read my post.

Quoted: Quoted:........... how else does one one get to the top?  Certainly not by disputing modern biology's most fundamental belief or religion.   Actually, going AGAINST the grain IS how Darwin got to the top. Sgatr15

Actually, his ideas didn't get that much recognition until atheism became the prevailent ideology among biologists.  

Quoted: Good morning, SteyrAUG. Got to admire your guts! A Polite discussion about evolution?  Give me a break. I have only a couple of short comments. 1.  Regarding the theory of evolution;  I don't believe it.  I have a university degree, so I would offer that I "understand" it.  I have taken courses where it was taught and passed them.  So I "understand" the theory well. I just do not believe that it has been proven.

OK, so I guess the question is this.

On what basis do you NOT believe in the Evolution of Man given the specific species I cited in my original post?

Now here again, I am only talking about what can be observed. I'm not discussion the parts of Evolution that speculate on the origin of life itself or the original "accent of Man."

Just on the fact that we have cataloged several distinct species of Man over time. Which is Evolution.

Quoted: Why did evolution stop?  Why are there none of these mutations walking around today? It does not make sense. Where are the hundreds of millions of skeletons of all the stages of these mutations? How could you only find one or two? That is absolutely bizarre and not scientific at all. I have never seen any fish with feet. Hell I have never seen a skeleton of a fish with feet either yet you can find skeletal remains of creatures that are millions of years old that look exactly the same they do today. For a scientific theory it is sorely lacking evidence. If you don't beleive in God I guess you have to take whatever you can get.

If you look at the skeleton of a whale, you will see the bones of rear feet which do not extend out of the body.

Evolution doesnt stop; its takes a long time.  Major changes take tens of thousands of years

Quoted: Quoted: Now if you like you can believe the following. God created "Man" and Evolution was his tool. I'm sure that people who believe this are grateful for your permission.

Wasn't giving my permission, I was offering some existing viewpoints on the subject for the sake of a complete discussion. People don't need my permission and I didn't intend the statement that way.

Quoted: Quoted: I suggest you study this subject some and take a biology class. SGat1r5 I've taken plenty of biology classes. Your comments are still wrong.

That remark was directed at someone else OP.  ANd no, I don't think I am wrong.  Just way to much eveidence supports Natural Selection.  God gave us all the laws of nature and He does not violateHis own laws IMHO.  WHich means that life and all of Gods creations came about thru the laws that God Himself set down.

The two have never been mutuall exclussive to me.

Sgat1r5

Quoted: Steyr specifically said. "This is NOT a religious topic."  Why do you guys then go out of your way to insult Christians that have different beliefs than you? Steyr didn't want to discuss religion.  He wanted to discuss the theory of evolution. Your comments above are about religion, not the theory of evolution.

Wanna hear the hilarious part? I actually thought this post was a good idea and would work.

I figured if I framed it in just such a way and stuck to the issue we could avoid the standard "I know you are but what am I?" GD exchange.

Quoted: OK, so I guess the question is this. On what basis do you NOT believe in the Evolution of Man given the specific species I cited in my original post? Now here again, I am only talking about what can be observed. I'm not discussi(ing) the parts of Evolution that speculate on the origin of life itself or the original "accent of Man." Just on the fact that we have cataloged several distinct species of Man over time. Which is Evolution.

Ah, but there's the rub.

Even if there were once creatures such as Neanderthals, etc, that does not mean that modern man "evolved" from them.

Maybe Neanderthals are a "devolution" of some other species?  I don't know.  

And that is the problem.  I do not have to have all the answers to say, "Darwins theroies are not believable".

I don't have all the answers regarding the various "species" you listed.  One possibility is that they were not really "human beings" for want of a better term.

But I, and many PHDs (contrary to what my buddy DKProf says) agree with me.

And, let me also note, that I am not "angry" with anyone that disagrees with me.  I do not feel the need to say bad things about them. I do not question their sanity.  I do not say that they lack "common sense".  I do not say that they lack "an open mind".

That is one of the many differences in me and some others here.

Quoted: Wanna hear the hilarious part? I actually thought this post was a good idea and would work. I figured if I framed it in just such a way and stuck to the issue we could avoid the standard "I know you are but what am I?" GD exchange.

So what are you drinking this early in the morning???

Quoted: Quoted: OK, here are the ground rules. <blah, blah, blah, blah> If anyone has any genuine questions I will attempt to POLITELY answer them. If evolution is real, then explain Jane Fonda riding around in a vegetable oil powered bus. Looks to me like Devolution in full flower.

Ever seen a bad egg?

Quoted: That is one of the many differences in me and some others here.

Okay OP, so how do you view Adam & Eve?

As the start of man, or as the re-birth of modern man?

Because THAT I can accept.

SGat1r5

Quoted: Quoted: That is one of the many differences in me and some others here. Okay OP, so how do you view Adam & Eve? As the start of man, or as the re-birth of modern man? Because THAT I can accept. SGat1r5

Interesting question.

However, Styer didn't want to discuss religion in this thread.

You could start another one, but you'd have to do that in the Segregated Religion Forum.

And, like Rosa Parks, I refuse to be segregated.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Bible explains why, science explains how. Sgat1r5 I completely disagree with you, my friend. But this discussion is not supposed to be about religion, so I will not explain why. There is no way I can talk about this subject and leave religion out of it, so I MUST bring it into the conversation. And even thought I follow science I am also smart enough to know that it doesn't answer all qeustions. And regardless of how we got here, God has always been thereeason WHY we are here. In other words, we as humans tend to focus on small details that mean little while missing the whole picture. So of us do this thru out our whole lives. SGat1r5

I was NOT looking to completely exclude all religious views. As you noted they are hard to completely disassociate. But I didn't want to turn it into the standard Evolution vs. Creation topic either.

I was merely offering some KNOWN examples of proven Evolution to establish that portion as known, observable fact and to offer a more accurate view of what Evolution states. Evolution has been greatly misunderstood and deliberately misrepresented in many cases on this forum.

Quoted: And, like Rosa Parks, I refuse to be segregated.

Then dear sir, I will ask you.....DON'T SEGRIGATE YOURSELF.

Because we CAN talk anbout religion in ANY thread we want as long as that is not the main focus.

I know you don't want to be segrigated but am cionfused why you are silencing yourself.


I have spoke to mods extensively on this issue and do not believe they will move this topic just because religion is mentioned.

Sgat1r5

Quoted: I was NOT looking to completely exclude all religious views. As you noted they are hard to completely disassociate. But I didn't want to turn it into the standard Evolution vs. Creation topic either. I was merely offering some KNOWN examples of proven Evolution to establish that portion as known, observable fact and to offer a more accurate view of what Evolution states. Evolution has been greatly misunderstood and deliberately misrepresented in many cases on this forum.

Oh I know Steyr,  and I agree with you.  But the two are intertwined for me.

Sgat1r5

Quoted: Quoted: Why did evolution stop?  Why are there none of these mutations walking around today? It does not make sense. Where are the hundreds of millions of skeletons of all the stages of these mutations? How could you only find one or two? That is absolutely bizarre and not scientific at all. I have never seen any fish with feet. Hell I have never seen a skeleton of a fish with feet either yet you can find skeletal remains of creatures that are millions of years old that look exactly the same they do today. For a scientific theory it is sorely lacking evidence. If you don't beleive in God I guess you have to take whatever you can get.   If you look at the skeleton of a whale, you will see the bones of rear feet which do not extend out of the body. Evolution doesnt stop; its takes a long time.  Major changes take tens of thousands of years

This is the conventional thinking and while valid to some extent the fossil record as incomplete as it is tend to support a much more complex view of evolution. Evolution that also works in fits and starts with great leaps in relative short periods, a lot of which appears to be more by accidental adoption than a strict process of natural selection.

In other words a species has an incidental sudden mutation that allows it to prosper rather than the traditional view that as species gradually evolves to fit its environment.

This is a subtle and at the same time profound difference. This means major meaningful adaptations could occur in the matter of a few generations and not necessarily take tens of thousands of years.

Personally, my belief is in what is called creative evolution.  This is supported by both science and theology.  I do not, however, disparage any one for their beliefs in either pure evolution, or pure creationism.  It is their belief and they have a right to it.

Explanation of creative evolution.....

We have fossil records showing changes, not only in man but also the animals, as well as several different, but agreeing theological writings.  The bible is my example in this.  

Although I can not remember exactly where, but the bible makes reference to time in that it says "A day is a thausand years and a thausand years is a day"  To me this means time is irrelevant and the days of creation are merely phases, not necessarily 24 hour periods.  God created the plants and animals.  However, man was molded of clay.  When something is molded, you start with a rough form and modify it until it reaches its finished form.  Ergo, the evolution of man into what he is today.  Also, God only created the plants and animals.  Where as man, he breathed in the breath of life.  To me, the breath of life is intelligence/soul.  God did not do this for the plants and animals.  

This is a very succinct explanation of my basic belief on the process but should give a general idea why I believe that although there was a divine influence into our existence, I do not believe that we merely suddenly appeared in the garden of eden in finished form.  

Quoted: Why did evolution stop?  Why are there none of these mutations walking around today? It does not make sense.

It hasn't and continues to effect species. But regarding Man we changed the way our environment effects us by adapting our environment to the species rather than adapting to it.

Quoted: Where are the hundreds of millions of skeletons of all the stages of these mutations? How could you only find one or two? That is absolutely bizarre and not scientific at all. I have never seen any fish with feet. Hell I have never seen a skeleton of a fish with feet either yet you can find skeletal remains of creatures that are millions of years old that look exactly the same they do today. For a scientific theory it is sorely lacking evidence. If you don't beleive in God I guess you have to take whatever you can get.

OK, first fossils being created and surviving are a rare occurances. Finding them is even more rare. Once the planet teemed with Dinosaurs, how many complete fossil skeletons did we have for various species only 30 years ago?

And I don't think (and nobody has ever seriously suggested) there was ever a fish with feet. Evolution suggested sea dwelling creatures evolved into species that COULD walk out of the ocean. See: Amphibians.

Quoted: Ah, but there's the rub. Even if there were once creatures such as Neanderthals, etc, that does not mean that modern man "evolved" from them. Maybe Neanderthals are a "devolution" of some other species?  I don't know.   And that is the problem.

Well given the fact that we documented several distinct varieties that went from using stone tools, to using fire, to building shelters and later even making art I'd suggest that doesn't "seem" like devolution.

Quoted: from my perspective discussion of religion in this thread would be appropriate. As long as it is just that, discussion. There is nothing wrong with espousing you view on a topic. this is an issue that religion and science have in common. mike

Thanks for the clarification.

New ground, just feeling my way along.

Kind of like a Hungarian Mine Technician.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That is one of the many differences in me and some others here. Okay OP, so how do you view Adam & Eve? As the start of man, or as the re-birth of modern man? Because THAT I can accept. SGat1r5 Interesting question. However, Styer didn't want to discuss religion in this thread. You could start another one, but you'd have to do that in the Segregated Religion Forum. And, like Rosa Parks, I refuse to be segregated.

The cow is out of the barn. You guys go ahead.

Quoted: and yes i am about to remove a few posts from this thread. mike

And don't forget to lock the accounts of the offenders per the rules.

Seriously if you are gonna do some pruning go ahead and remove my replies to those individuals as well.

And thanks for the cleanup.

Quoted: The cow is out of the barn.

My Dad used to say that when I forgot to zip up my pants.

Quoted: Well given the fact that we documented several distinct varieties that went from using stone tools, to using fire, to building shelters and later even making art I'd suggest that doesn't "seem" like devolution.

Just because these "species" used tools, etc, does not mean:

1.  That they were "human beings" (for want of a better term)

or

2.  That modern man (human beings) "evolved" from them.

These facts (about tools and shelter, etc) prove nothing.  Some sea otters use tools.

Quoted: Quoted: Well given the fact that we documented several distinct varieties that went from using stone tools, to using fire, to building shelters and later even making art I'd suggest that doesn't "seem" like devolution. Just because these "species" used tools, etc, does not mean: 1.  That they were "human beings" (for want of a better term) or 2.  That modern man (human beings) "evolved" from them. These facts (about tools and shelter, etc) prove nothing.  Some sea otters use tools.

Absolutely, this is more probable than not.

The latest indication are that Neanderthals evolved as a distinct and separate species from Homo Sapiens, Homo Sapiens (or near Homo Sapiens) may pre-date Neanderthals and are not closely related and almost certainly evolved along different tracks.

Any evidence of a near Homo Sapien man is at most 200,000 years old an incredibly small slice of geological time.

I have to preface with this:

I know God to be real.  He is as real as the air that I breath and the ground that I walk on.  He wrote a book for me.  He tells me how man as we know him today came to be.  I believe that bit without question, and so I do not believe that man as we know him today "evolved" from any creature.

Evolution is a theory; it is the best scientific theory for the origin of the species.  Is it right?  I don't know.  It certainly doesn't explain a lot of things, and a good scientist must always be leery of theories that leave so much unexplained.  The number of data points collected is also very small, and the theory cannot be tested in the laboratory.  Here's how solid scientific research is done:

I go into the lab.  I measure a quantity Y about 10,000 times (that gives me about a 1% statistical error).  Then I change the initial conditions X and make another 10k measurements, and so on.  At the end of the day, I have a measured function Y(X) that is accurate within about 1%, assuming I didn't make any major systematic mistakes.  That function Y(X) is now "fact" (within the quoted uncertainties).  Now, you can come up with any number of theoretical curves that fit Y(X) pretty well; the measurements I made don't make any of those theories "fact".  Even if theorists were only smart enough to come up with one theoretical curve that fits, my measurement doesn't "prove" that theory.  It only means that nobody was smart enough to come up with another suggestion yet.  It lets the theorist write a nice article and say "see, we're the only ones with an explanation.....right now", but it is not "proof".

Thus goes it with evolution.  We find fossils, etc.  Those fossils are "facts"; they exist.  The age of those fossils are also "facts", with a very large uncertainty.  Just because they fit into the vague scheme of "evolution" does not make evolution a fact.  End of story; that's how science works.

I have nothing against the idea of evolution in general; I do not claim to know the mind of God.  As a scientist by profession, I do strenuously object to the idea that has been "proven".

I think the problem with most of the evolutionary debate on the internet. Is that we spend far to much time, dusting off Cro-magnon mans skull with a toothbrush, as proof he was here. Rather than looking inside the brain case, of that skull and wondering what went on in there.

I mean, the basic motivations, circuitry, hard wiring, behaviours and motivations, that allowed our species to survive.

As much as most here despise psychologists and behavoiuralists, their presence in the evolutionary debate is vital, in gaining any understanding,  of the basic questions relating to "Who we are?" "Where we came from?" and "Why are we here?"

Finding the "missing Link" is nothing, if we cannot understand the changes in brain wiring and behavoiur, that went on, as that brain case got bigger. The changes in the brain, that occured over millions of years, hold the keys to understanding.

I suppose, if I had a religion at all. I'd be classified as a Evolution Psychologist

I posted these quotes yesterday, in one of the Evo threads, but I think they bare repeating, for the sake of our disscussion here today...

"It is becoming nearly impossible to account for the events on this planet with the assumption of a Divine Creator who has a plan and a rationale for everything. The systems of thought that must be created in order to maintain Divine Providence get more insane by the minute." -Robert T. Carroll -The Skeptic's Dictionary In its healthiest form, anxiety is meant to prompt an animal to avoid or escape a potentially hazardous situation. In humans, however, once we became aware of the fact that death was not only inescapable but that it could come at any moment, we were left in a state of constant mortal peril, a state of unceasing anxiety. With the emergence of self-awareness, humans became the dysfunctional animal, rendered helpless by an inherent and unceasing anxiety disorder, all due to our inherent awareness of death. Unless nature could somehow relieve us of this debilitating cognition, it's quite possible our species may have been headed for certain extinction. It was suddenly critical that our animal be modified in some way that would allow us to maintain self-conscious awareness while enabling us to deal with our unique awareness of our own mortalities. Here lies the origin of humankind's spiritual function. -Matthew Alper -The God Part of the Brain "You only get disillusioned if you had illusions to begin with." -Apes With Tools

Devising Mythology, Religion and Sprituality, were as vital to our survival and evolutionary progress, as walking upright or fire.

The only problem being. Not every evolutionary trait, retains it's value in the long term and sometimes evolutionary traits come back and bite a species in the ass, long after that traits usefullness, has come to an end. Sometime these traits even bringing about the extinction of that species.

For those of you, who don't belive you still carry this ape wiring in your head, try this simple experiment...

Walk into an unfarmiliar biker bar some night after about 1:00am and in the few scant seconds after your eyes adjust. Be brutaly honest with yourself, about how your monkey brain, just assessed, every threat and female in the entire bar.

Who you made eye contact with, who you didn't make eye contact with and why? Did you notice the big, loud, burly belligerent, bastard pounding on the bar as he berated the other customers? Did you notice the half drunk chick wearing the fuck-me halter top, who seems to be alone and looking for some male companionship?....Fact is, your monkey brain wiring made a quick and dirty survival assessement of every Fuck, Fight or Flight factor in the room, in the matter of a couple of seconds.

The only diffence, in the survival assessemnt you just made in the biker bar and the survival assessemt made by some distant ancient ancestor, with a brow ridge,  who walked upright, into some cave, in prehistoric central Europe, is the jukebox, booze that doesn't require skimming and that the females wear more clothes....well, that and the fact, that your carrying enough protien grown brain cells, to be able to comprehend what the monkey brain wiring, deep inside your human brain, just did.

.

Quoted: It IS my intention to address the idea that Evolution is merely a "theory" with no more validity than the literal creation story of Genesis.

Maybe already addressed in the thread, but you're starting out on entirely the wrong foot by using the common definition of "theory" and not the definition of scientific theory.

The common use "theory" means an idea, a possibility, a big maybe.  

A scientific theory is a set of rules explaining scientific observations and supported by evidence, with sufficient verification that it is accepted by a large number or percentage of scientists.

A second use of the word "theory" in science is to refer to the entire body of scientific knowledge about a subject.  You may say you are going to study Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.  Or, you could announce to the class that you are going to study gravitational theory, and include Newtonian, GR, and non-GR mathematics and ideas.

Jim

I haven't read the last 4 pages but I just wanted to throw in a "Heathen."  Thank you, that will be all.

Quoted: Quoted: There are so many errors in this post I don't know where to start. Can I suggest a website that gets 1,000,000 hits a month.www.answersingenesis.org/home.aspx Please spend some time there before you try to explain creationism to us again, there is something like 35,000 articles on that site. Look up some articles about  fossil dating and find out that many of those dates were decided on BEFORE any dating methods were thought up. Also, those dating methods Always use assumptions to come to their conclusions, assumptions that have been proven wrong many times. Also, you don't understand the evolution if you think it is non-religious, Erasmus Darwin, Charles' grandfather and the true inventer of the theory sure thought it was. There are no errors. I was NOT explaining creationism. I addressed your notion that Evolution is a religious issue. I addressed the dating issue as well. Perhaps you should actually read my post.

You're right, your post didn't have errors in it, it had assumptions that you mistakenly think are truths.
I read your post
"You can also believe the literal story of Genesis is true and God created a Earth with a history that never happened and he (or Satan if you like) put fossils in the ground that never lived complete with evidence of stone tools, fire and man made shelters.

None of this is true and fossils are nothing more than strangely shaped rocks and we don't really understand anything about anything."

This is you trying to explain creationism. This is a straw man and not what creationists are saying.


The main problem with dating, as I have told you in other threads, is that they all depend on unprovible assumptions. You won't read this link either .

<looks around>

<sees old, friendly familiar faces.....and misses the days when SteyrAUG started these topics regularly>


<figures 'oh, why not'.....>





Steyr,

Like Old_Painless, I have one of those university degrees he mentioned.

During the process of obtaining it, I, too, had to sit through MANY classes where evolution was taught as settled fact. I enjoyed every one of them, and learned quite a bit. If I thought about it for a while, I could probably still discuss Archaeopterix Major (Or was it Minor? did I spell it right? It's been a while..) and the divergent evolution that gave us birds from reptiles.

Or I could tell stories about the Mammalogy professor who hated Christians and our idiotic views on creationism.

Of course, the former would be off-topic, and the latter would violate the rules you set up - so I'll go on and answer your question, to the best of my (rusty, very rusty) abilities.

Anyway.....to say I had been exposed to evolution would be an understatement.

There was:

Plant Biology
Zoology
Zoology II
Dendrology
Taxonomy of Spermatophytes
Genetics
Silviculture (2 semesters of practical evolution techniques, basically)
Ornithology
Mammalogy
Several Ecology classes

All of the above - and numerous others - included numerous lectures on evolution.

Yes, I passed all of those classes.
Yes, I showed up for the lectures on evolution.
No, I never got kicked out of class for arguing with a professor.
Yes, I was threatened with it a few times - but not over evolution.

So, anyway....


My personal thoughts on the matter:



You forwarded the theory earlier that God could have created man, exactly as outlined in Genesis, and the fossils were either put their by God, were left over from a previous form of life, or have been mis-dated and aren't really as old as we think.


That is, roughly, my position.

I honestly don't know how/why fossils are in the ground.

I've found seashells on hilltops hundreds of miles inland. I have some fossilized shark teeth dug out from under many feet of dirt, hundreds of miles inland.

I can't explain why they are there.

For those who claim to be able to explain them away, I have to ask......why bother? Proving evolution (or creation, for that matter) has never led to a meaningful contribution to society. It may have increased our knowledge base....but to what end?


Do I think dinosaurs walked the earth?

Sure.

Do I think evolutionary concepts (change over time) are valid?

Sure. Just look at your best friend's wife's silly little 6-pound yap dog.......genetic change, over time, forced by man's vain desire to create a fashionable but otherwise useless accessory for turning $20 bills into dog poop, created the yap dog.

Evolution is just that - change over time.

Within those bounds, I have no problem, none whatsoever, with evolution.

I do NOT see why it is such a big deal, UNLESS it is taught by those with an anti-creationist agenda (i.e. trying to disprove God's existence). To expound upon this would be to cross the lines you set forth - so I won't do it here.


So.....where was I?

Oh...in summary......yes, I believe in change over time. No, I don't believe that humans have changed since we were created. No, I have no explantation for - or interest in - fossilized records that appear to contradict the Biblical account of creation. My Lord said in His Word how He created life. His Word is sufficient for me.

Long story short:

Evolution is a process by which animals change when forced to change by environmental circumstances.

God made man the way He wanted us to be the first time - and we haven't changed one whit since Eve first tricked Adam into eating the forbidden fruit.

Quoted: Just look at your best friend's wife's silly little 6-pound yap dog.......genetic change, over time, forced by man's vain desire to create a fashionable but otherwise useless accessory for turning $20 bills into dog poop, created the yap dog.

 My nominee for best post of the thread!

Quoted: Quoted: Just look at your best friend's wife's silly little 6-pound yap dog.......genetic change, over time, forced by man's vain desire to create a fashionable but otherwise useless accessory for turning $20 bills into dog poop, created the yap dog.  My nominee for best post of the thread!

 +1

That was great!

Sgat1r5

Since this is somewhat on-topic, I'd like to recommend a book to the intellectually curious among the crowd (and that statement in meant to included EVERYONE in this very polite thread !! - not a subtle insult).

The book is called "The Moral Animal" and is written by Robert Wright.  It is awesome, in that it is extremely thought-provoking, and purely scientific - in that it just wants to talk about and explain various phenomena that current thinking oesn't explain at all, like the many commonalities in human behaviors across all cultures and societies.

It is the most interesting book I have read in many, many years.  It summarizes a lot of the findings of a relatively new branch of psychology called Evolutionary Psychology, which is an absolutely fascinating field - that essentially asks WHY our brains and cognitions work they way they do.  Why was it functional/efficient for our brains to develop the way they did, and what does that tell us.  I'm not kidding, it is absolutely fascinating!!  (or at least it was to me).

Obviously, this kind of stuff is hard to test empirically, but there has been a supririnsg amount of empirical work that is really solid - based on predictions from evolutionary psych.  I had a chance to meet with Leda Cosmides and see some of her research when she came to present it to us a few years ago, and I was blown away.  When I was talking to her afterwards, I told her that if I had to do my Ph.D. all over again, I'd do it in Evolutionary Psych instead of Organizational Behavior.  If I ever get tenure, I am probably going to start shifting more of my research away from my current work and more towards evolutionary psych.  (In fact, even though we're a business school, we're hiring a visiting professor of evolutionary psych this year). It's very cool.

The book doesn't explain a lot of the detailed research, but it gives a very neat overview of the field - and also provides a nice biography of Darwin's life - as a cute case study to illustrate examples about evolutionary psych.

I'm no doubt doing a very badd job of explaining the book - but I highly recommend it to anyone.  Borrow it at the library if you don't want money to go to  books about evolution.

If nothing else, this book will allow you to COMPLETELY understand women!!!  Seriously!  

Quoted: Since this is somewhat on-topic, I'd like to recommend a book to the intellectually curious among the crowd (and that statement in meant to included EVERYONE in this very polite thread !! - not a subtle insult). The book is called "The Moral Animal" and is written by Robert Wright.  It is awesome, in that it is extremely thought-provoking, and purely scientific - in that it just wants to talk about and explain various phenomena that current thinking oesn't explain at all, like the many commonalities in human behaviors across all cultures and societies. It is the most interesting book I have read in many, many years.  It summarizes a lot of the findings of a relatively new branch of psychology called Evolutionary Psychology, which is an absolutely fascinating field - that essentially asks WHY our brains and cognitions work they way they do.  Why was it functional/efficient for our brains to develop the way they did, and what does that tell us.  I'm not kidding, it is absolutely fascinating!!  (or at least it was to me). Obviously, this kind of stuff is hard to test empirically, but there has been a supririnsg amount of empirical work that is really solid - based on predictions from evolutionary psych.  I had a chance to meet with Leda Cosmides and see some of her research when she came to present it to us a few years ago, and I was blown away.  When I was talking to her afterwards, I told her that if I had to do my Ph.D. all over again, I'd do it in Evolutionary Psych instead of Organizational Behavior.  If I ever get tenure, I am probably going to start shifting more of my research away from my current work and more towards evolutionary psych.  (In fact, even though we're a business school, we're hiring a visiting professor of evolutionary psych this year). It's very cool. The book doesn't explain a lot of the detailed research, but it gives a very neat overview of the field - and also provides a nice biography of Darwin's life - as a cute case study to illustrate examples about evolutionary psych. I'm no doubt doing a very badd job of explaining the book - but I highly recommend it to anyone.  Borrow it at the library if you don't want money to go to  books about evolution. If nothing else, this book will allow you to COMPLETELY understand women!!!  Seriously!

Could they cut out the science part, and just sell the part that explains women? I'd pay extra for that.....


edit:

nervermind, I went to amazon.com and read the reviews.....



You oughta be a salesman. You had me interested..............

Quoted: Quoted: If nothing else, this book will allow you to COMPLETELY understand women!!!  Seriously!   Could they cut out the science part, and just sell the part that explains women? I'd pay extra for that.....

Hehe - one of my good friends had read the book when we were at a conference recently.  So we're standing during a cocktail hour, having some drinks, and he loudly said "Yeah, I just read this book, and now I completely understand women.  Go on - ask me anything!"

That's when he realized that he was standing in a circle of all women professors, who all got this predatory smile on their faces, leaned in, saying "Really?"

RUN AWAAAAAAYYYY  !!!!  

Quoted: edit: nervermind, I went to amazon.com and read the reviews..... You oughta be a salesman. You had me interested..............

From that I assume the reviews were bad.  


Oh well.  Don't really care.  All I know is that all the empirical research in this field I've seen has been really interesting, and that the book was absolutely fascinating.

I know there are a lot of critics of it in the existing acaemic community, both in traditional psych, but particularly in sociology and related disciplines, because evolutionary psych is essentially starting to factually demonstrate that they are completely wrong about a LOT of stuff, and that traditional models really o not explain a lot of the funemental questions about human behavior.

I'm telling you sincerely and honestly, as a researcher in a psychology-relate field - it's very exciting stuff to see this field grow.  (not trying to sell books - never met this Robert Wright guy).



I believe there is also some backlash against the field, because a similar field tried to get off the ground a few decades ago, but really wasn't empirical, and had a more "moral" and judgmental component to it (and was fundamentally flawed).  A lot of people might be reacting badly to this research because it might be reminiscent of the older crap.'

Either way - I just wanted to mention it, because I honestly found it to be the most interesting book I have read in many years (the only other one as good is "The Skeptical Environmentalist").






Just for fun, I double-dog dare you to buy it and read it - and if you don't like it, I'll pay for it (and for you to ship it to another arfcommer)