Dr. Ben Carson speaks truth to Obama at prayer breakfast.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I don't agree with his assessment of how evolution is taught; at least, that's not how it was taught for me. The changes that we see with micro-evolution at the very least have to make you ask, what the limit is, right?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

To a point but the macro genetic change idea not really...

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

In depth no. Skimmed the topic once (brought on by a too hot thread) once in the last year (maybe two as time is hard to remember with a 4 year old, two year old and baby due Monday) looking at both sides.

I would suggest when you get time to give it a fair full look and see if it modifies your view at all. There are pretty clear, documented examples of evolution of one species to another over time, and when you look at the total picture it presents (including us humans) it is a very reasonable conclusion to draw, based on what has been found, where and how old it is, how isolated species change, how natural disasters like the dinosaur extinction event change the evolutionary path, how by nature organisms modify into more complicated species etc. I am not saying take my word for it that it's the right answer but give it a open look when you have time and let me know what you think. And if it doesn't move you at all, then you can be that much stronger/secure in your belief and defense of it with the full understanding of what others perceive as the merits of the counter argument.

[oragator1]

By the way, as someone who has said repeatedly I am a science person, the way I overcome the dichotomy is to believe in a certain fatalism about the nature of the universe. If there is a God, they could have easily set a path in motion knowing all of the consequences, which would allow for science/evolution and religion. And if you are prone to believe in it, nothing would preclude them from a tweak now and then(or more) to keep things on that path. That's why when people ask I say I am somewhere in the triangle between Christian, Agnostic and Deist.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by Row6

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...ticle/lines_01

Row, did you read the site you linked to? It actually confirms my earlier suggestion that much of evolutionary "proof" is bait and switch.

Read throughout the site and pretty much all of the examples are changes over time within the same species. They try to do a comparison of the skeleton of a whale and hummingbird, but it appears quite tortured to me.

They discuss homologous structures, both at the cellular level and the bony structures, as a certain example of related descent between different animals. But if an intelligent designer was going to create a wide array of animals to live in the same environment, wouldn't that designer likely use some similar structural designs?

Interesting also that they try to use differing breeds of dogs as an example of the power of natural selection, yet there is nothing natural about the selection process that leads to the development of breeds. That is a process that is directed by intelligent agents (dog breeders). If we stopped directing the breeding and the breeds interacted freely, dachshunds and chihuahuas would probably disappear quickly and the rest would blend over time into indistinct mongrels...or even wolves.

Row, please review the site and suggest to me which page, in your opinion, displays the best evidence of MACRO evolution

[wygator]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

The problem with Creationism taught in a science classroom is primarily due to it's lack of falsifiability. If there is no evidence that you could accept that would suggest something is wrong, then that something has no business in a science class.

However we got here, there's a method to it. Whether that is evolution or something else, the method is what is relevant to a science class. Creation without a proposed analyzable method has nothing to do with science.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Then please explain how macro evolution over millions of years is falsifiable or can be experimentally tested? By this logic, evolution is no more scientific than creationism.
I think it takes a lot more faith to believe that organic life created itself from rock and built itself into an array of increasingly complex, diversified and remarkably intelligent creatures than it does to believe that they were designed.

Evolutionists and creationists are simply looking at the same evidence and drawing different conclusions.

We look at this and instantly know that it was designed. We intrinsically understand that the faces have the hallmark of design and could not be created by random processes:



Yet many look at this and think it created itself over time, through random and undirected processes, even though the vanishingly complex workings go far beyond the mere surface appearance of the image above:

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by wygator

Then please explain how macro evolution over millions of years is falsifiable or can be experimentally tested? By this logic, evolution is no more scientific than creationism.
I think it takes a lot more faith to believe that organic life created itself from rock and built itself into an array of increasingly complex, diversified and remarkably intelligent creatures than it does to believe that they were designed.

At a *minimum* it's falsifiable to the extent that we can observe the events going forward. If the theory is false, we can expect no further differentiation of species to the extent that you would consider it "macro." If the theory is true, then we may be able to observe further differentiation of species. Necessarily, other factors may be considered as to why things changed.

But if you asked a macro-evolution theorist if one could devise a test that would have him reconsider the theory, I would say the answer would be yes. The same cannot be said of a Creationist.

Originally Posted by wygator

Evolutionists and creationists are simply looking at the same evidence and drawing different conclusions.

Perhaps they're *both* right. The concept of Creation refers to an ID, but what if God's design involved evolution?

Originally Posted by wygator

We look at this and instantly know that it was designed. We intrinsically understand that the faces have the hallmark of design and could not be created by random processes:

...

Yet many look at this and think it created itself over time, through random and undirected processes, even though the vanishingly complex workings go far beyond the mere surface appearance of the image above:

...

Yep, I agree. Both designed. But science deals with the *how* (process) not the *why* (purpose). One example of evolution can be seen in the transformation of a new zygote to a newborn baby. How can we say that this is possible, but the transformation of life over many, many, many years is something that God is not capable of?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wygator]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

At a *minimum* it's falsifiable to the extent that we can observe the events going forward. If the theory is false, we can expect no further differentiation of species to the extent that you would consider it "macro." If the theory is true, then we may be able to observe further differentiation of species. Necessarily, other factors may be considered as to why things changed.

But if you asked a macro-evolution theorist if one could devise a test that would have him reconsider the theory, I would say the answer would be yes. The same cannot be said of a Creationist.



Perhaps they're *both* right. The concept of Creation refers to an ID, but what if God's design involved evolution?



Yep, I agree. Both designed. But science deals with the *how* (process) not the *why* (purpose). One example of evolution can be seen in the transformation of a new zygote to a newborn baby. How can we say that this is possible, but the transformation of life over many, many, many years is something that God is not capable of?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

When you see design, mustn't there be a designer?

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by wygator

When you see design, mustn't there be a designer?

Of course, but science doesn't care about intent only about process.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Itssaul]

Religion: requires data to disprove it and calls everyone hell bound for doing other wise, yet requires NO data to prove it.


Example: hey guys, god talked to me. He's actually black, and he's pretty cool too. Says all the worship is weird bc he's just a normal guy in his realm. Seriously there's a whole bunch of them! Disprove me, go 'head. I have FAITH and I will die for this idea. Now all I need to do is indoctrinate everyone through horribly questionable tactics.

[DaveFla]

Originally Posted by malligator

See lacuna's posts, especially the first where many Emory faculty, staff, and alumni were unhappy giving an honorary degree to an eminent neursugeon and first-class philanthropist because of his religious views. How very open-mined and progressive of them.

I didn't see where he said the earth is only 6,000 years old, as was the claim...

[Row6]

Originally Posted by wygator

Row, did you read the site you linked to? It actually confirms my earlier suggestion that much of evolutionary "proof" is bait and switch.

Read throughout the site and pretty much all of the examples are changes over time within the same species. They try to do a comparison of the skeleton of a whale and hummingbird, but it appears quite tortured to me.

They discuss homologous structures, both at the cellular level and the bony structures, as a certain example of related descent between different animals. But if an intelligent designer was going to create a wide array of animals to live in the same environment, wouldn't that designer likely use some similar structural designs?

Interesting also that they try to use differing breeds of dogs as an example of the power of natural selection, yet there is nothing natural about the selection process that leads to the development of breeds. That is a process that is directed by intelligent agents (dog breeders). If we stopped directing the breeding and the breeds interacted freely, dachshunds and chihuahuas would probably disappear quickly and the rest would blend over time into indistinct mongrels...or even wolves.

Row, please review the site and suggest to me which page, in your opinion, displays the best evidence of MACRO evolution

So, you think someone designing a whale would use a hummingbird as a pattern. Why? Since you have such high standards of proof, surely you must have some verifiable evidence for your belief in a designer, right?

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by oragator1

I would suggest when you get time to give it a fair full look and see if it modifies your view at all. There are pretty clear, documented examples of evolution of one species to another over time, and when you look at the total picture it presents (including us humans) it is a very reasonable conclusion to draw, based on what has been found, where and how old it is, how isolated species change, how natural disasters like the dinosaur extinction event change the evolutionary path, how by nature organisms modify into more complicated species etc. I am not saying take my word for it that it's the right answer but give it a open look when you have time and let me know what you think. And if it doesn't move you at all, then you can be that much stronger/secure in your belief and defense of it with the full understanding of what others perceive as the merits of the counter argument.

That's just it. When I did spend some time (again not in depth) I gain a stronger belief in that macro evolution is not the answer. Besides the statistical improbabilities of macro evolution I also get hung up on the where/how the first living cell appeared. And it just did is not solid science for me...

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by wygator

Then please explain how macro evolution over millions of years is falsifiable or can be experimentally tested? By this logic, evolution is no more scientific than creationism.
I think it takes a lot more faith to believe that organic life created itself from rock and built itself into an array of increasingly complex, diversified and remarkably intelligent creatures than it does to believe that they were designed.

Evolutionists and creationists are simply looking at the same evidence and drawing different conclusions.

We look at this and instantly know that it was designed. We intrinsically understand that the faces have the hallmark of design and could not be created by random processes:



Yet many look at this and think it created itself over time, through random and undirected processes, even though the vanishingly complex workings go far beyond the mere surface appearance of the image above:

Said much better than I could have said it...

[wygator]

Originally Posted by Row6

So, you think someone designing a whale would use a hummingbird as a pattern. Why? Since you have such high standards of proof, surely you must have some verifiable evidence for your belief in a designer, right?

I think no such thing. Apparently though, Berkley thinks they are related.

My evidence for a designer is comparable to evolutionists evidence that all life came from one original source. Since no one was there at the origin, it is not testable, falsifiable or otherwise within the realm of traditional scientific inquiry by strict definition.

Obviously we can examine historical, fossil and other evidence and draw conclusions.

I believe the incredibly complex design of life, the interaction of hormones and enzymes and the factories to produce and release them in the right amounts at the right times, the differentiation of cells and the ability as a fetus grows for these cells to go to the right places and develop into specialized organs, a brain that functions in ways that computer designers still dream of, the process of healing when injured, eating most anything and having the body turn it into usable energy, are all evidence that there must be an intelligent agent involved in our creation.

Here is a video from Johns Hopkins that demonstrates how complex the process of something that we consider quite ordinary really is...the coagulation of blood.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hemat...oagulation.swf

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by wygator

I think no such thing. Apparently though, Berkley thinks they are related.

My evidence for a designer is comparable to evolutionists evidence that all life came from one original source. Since no one was there at the origin, it is not testable, falsifiable or otherwise within the realm of traditional scientific inquiry by strict definition.

Obviously we can examine historical, fossil and other evidence and draw conclusions.

I believe the incredibly complex design of life, the interaction of hormones and enzymes and the factories to produce and release them in the right amounts at the right times, the differentiation of cells and the ability as a fetus grows for these cells to go to the right places and develop into specialized organs, a brain that functions in ways that computer designers still dream of, the process of healing when injured, eating most anything and having the body turn it into usable energy, are all evidence that there must be an intelligent agent involved in our creation.

Here is a video from Johns Hopkins that demonstrates how complex the process of something that we consider quite ordinary really is...the coagulation of blood.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hemat...oagulation.swf

The difference between evolution and ID in terms of the scientific method is evolution can be examined and questioned if and when new evidence is discovered. ID, on the other hand, is tautology. Something or someone created us because all things created has a designer. The only things that may be tested or hypothesized here is who or what is the something or someone that is the creator. And given that most creation stories throughout history have little or no basis in scientific fact, this discussion is best left to theology classes, and not science classes. That's not to say ID can't be mentioned in science class, but I'd prefer something like, "There are other, competing theories to the origin of species like ID, but in this science class, we are going to learn the most widely accepted, scientific theory. If you wish to further your knowledge of the competing theories, feel free to do your own research."

One thing that hasn't been mentioned before in regards to macro evolution is time. I know evolutionists usually groan when time is mentioned, but if evolutionary theory is true, humans have only been around for 10,000 years out of the 1-2 billions years life has existed on Earth. And we have only been recording our history for the past 5,000 years, give or take. To put this in perspective, there are 31,557,600 seconds in an average year (365.25 days to account for leap years). Using the assumption life is 1 billion years old, if it were compressed into a year, humans would only exist the last 5 minutes 15 seconds, and only have recorded the last 2 minutes 37 seconds. Now, there is a lot you can learn about a year in 2 minutes 37 seconds, but there is so much infinitely more you won't learn about.

With time in context, consider the total number of organisms that have lived in the past billion years, and then consider the number of fossils we have found. Fossils have only been searched and cataloged for about the past 150 years. The evolution puzzle could have thousands of pieces that we either haven't found yet, or may never found. And while we think we know what the completed puzzle looks like, it's not like we know for sure. Does this mean God is the answer?

Maybe, maybe not. We may never know for sure, but just saying God is the answer, or the "God of the gaps," if you will, again is tautology. It doesn't belong in science class.

[JerseyGator01]

Ben Carson, meet the IRS.

[reformedgator]

Originally Posted by wygator

Then please explain how macro evolution over millions of years is falsifiable or can be experimentally tested? By this logic, evolution is no more scientific than creationism.
I think it takes a lot more faith to believe that organic life created itself from rock and built itself into an array of increasingly complex, diversified and remarkably intelligent creatures than it does to believe that they were designed.

Evolutionists and creationists are simply looking at the same evidence and drawing different conclusions.

We look at this and instantly know that it was designed. We intrinsically understand that the faces have the hallmark of design and could not be created by random processes:



Yet many look at this and think it created itself over time, through random and undirected processes, even though the vanishingly complex workings go far beyond the mere surface appearance of the image above:

+1 It's more about the suppression of evidence than it is the lack of it.

[FearNoSpear]

Originally Posted by Row6

you wish

I don't think anyone wishes that upon you.

[FearNoSpear]

Originally Posted by Row6

That would be like me saying "believers are all creepy idiots, but hey, no offense intended." That's not ignoring political correctness (something that religious conservatives practice their own version of) but being an unselfaware jerk.

I don't agree with your assessment.

And I would still be open enough to hear what you had to say after the fact. Being a believer who you may deem a creepy idiot. Your opposite stance doesn't offend me. To be offended would make one overly sensitive. Sometimes you can learn the most from those that think nothing like you.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by FearNoSpear

And I would still be open enough to hear what you had to say after the fact. Being a believer who you may deem a creepy idiot. Your opposite stance doesn't offend me. To be offended would make one overly sensitive. Sometimes you can learn the most from those that think nothing like you.

Yep