|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/26/2008 10:24:52 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 482
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MusicianDad
Yeah, I'd go straight to the "Insolent fool" argument if I were you too, lol. I don't know where you went to high school, but the origin of life is part and parcel of Evolution as taught in school.
Which part of my post are you responding to?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/26/2008 11:57:40 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MusicianDad
I don't know where you went to high school, but the origin of life is part and parcel of Evolution as taught in school.
Just because abiogenesis and evolution both appear in a biology textbook doesn't mean they are the same thing. If the origin of life is taught as part and parcel of evolution, it indicates that the teaching of science at the high school level needs to be improved. Personally, I would like to see the exact citations from the text.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/26/2008 7:27:25 PM
|
|
|
MusicianDad
Posts: 153
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
The wisecrack was in responce to this:
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
But you would have known this if you knew how evolution actually works.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
What I find strange about this whole thread is that creationists have lots of critisisms against evolution, until you ask them. They they don't have anything. They just bring up irrelevant distractions that do not address evolution, but strawmen.
My guess is that's what you get when you talk to non-scientists. If you want an advarsary worthy of your superior intellect, try Hugh Ross' website, or somebody like that. Otherwise you're stuck with us dummies. Personally, I have a hard time with any faith system that requires me to believe in something from nothing, effects with no cause, or chaos producing order.
Oh, a few posts back somebody said Chihuahuas and Great Danes were not the same species because they could no longer mate. First of all, that's incorrect. Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, that's not the scientific definition of a species. C'mon guys, keep it real, or at least as real as a Darwinist can.
< Message edited by MusicianDad -- 5/26/2008 7:34:42 PM >
_____________________________
Heartland Rocks!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EK9opsMo0jg
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/27/2008 11:10:11 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Annie64
Are there really no peer-reviewed criticisms to evolution?
Lynn Margulis's work in her Endosymbiotic theory was often considered a critique of evolution where symbiotic relationships were a major factor in species change, as one example.
quote:
The article that JonCo54 posted did bring out some good science that has been peer reviewed, I would think. He did not say, as Method said he did, that it didn't happen because he couldn't imagine how it could, but that it didn't happen because chemicals do not react that way.
Then show me where the author supported any of his arguments. It's a very long rant with the single conclusion of "abiogenesis can't happen because I say so", not to mention the things that the author gets completely wrong. Also, I don't see a single reference to peer reviewed literature.
There are way too many mistakes in that article for one post, but if there are bits that you are curious about quote it here and I will disect it.
quote:
He brought out a lot of information to support his claim and all of it seemed to be science drawn from chemistry and biology and applied to the criticism of evolution.
Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, so the article is off target to begin with.
quote:
What would be wrong with that being taught to high school students? Because it would (gasp) give students of faith permission to believe?
It would be wrong for this article to be presented in science class because there are tons of bad information in it, one of which is the conflation of abiogenesis and evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 6/4/2008 10:33:52 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 482
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MusicianDad
The wisecrack was in responce to this:
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
But you would have known this if you knew how evolution actually works.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
What I find strange about this whole thread is that creationists have lots of critisisms against evolution, until you ask them. They they don't have anything. They just bring up irrelevant distractions that do not address evolution, but strawmen.
My guess is that's what you get when you talk to non-scientists.
I honsetly dont have a problem with people posting when they have no knowledge. What I do have a problem with is thier refusal to be corrected when they are wrong. Do you have any idea how many times people make THE SAME mistakes... and when they are corrected, they keep on making them? Why? Do you have any idea how many times people have been told that evolution does not equal abiogenesis? Why this perverse insistance on being wrong all the time in stead of being corrected?
quote:
If you want an advarsary worthy of your superior intellect, try Hugh Ross' website, or somebody like that. Otherwise you're stuck with us dummies. Personally, I have a hard time with any faith system that requires me to believe in something from nothing, effects with no cause, or chaos producing order.
Which faith system would that be?
quote:
Oh, a few posts back somebody said Chihuahuas and Great Danes were not the same species because they could no longer mate.
When evolution uses the term 'species', that is exactly what is means. When two populations are physically unable to produce offspring, or they are prevented in some way.
quote:
First of all, that's incorrect. Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, that's not the scientific definition of a species. C'mon guys, keep it real, or at least as real as a Darwinist can.
Actually... it is the scientific definition of a species.
So... now that you have been corrected, answer the following question:
What is the scientific definition of a species?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 6/4/2008 2:48:41 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
When evolution uses the term 'species', that is exactly what is means. When two populations are physically unable to produce offspring, or they are prevented in some way.
Just to nitpick, it is when two populations do not interbreed when given the chance. This would include speciation due to sexual selection.
The important mechanism here is divergence. A lack of interbreeding between populations, no matter the cause, results in different mutations accumulating in each population.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 6/5/2008 3:36:30 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 482
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
When evolution uses the term 'species', that is exactly what is means. When two populations are physically unable to produce offspring, or they are prevented in some way.
Just to nitpick, it is when two populations do not interbreed when given the chance. This would include speciation due to sexual selection.
The important mechanism here is divergence. A lack of interbreeding between populations, no matter the cause, results in different mutations accumulating in each population.
Thanks. But I think thats pretty much what I said. :)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 6/5/2008 7:51:31 PM
|
|
|
ChristopherJ
Posts: 215
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Canada (The True North Strong and Free!)
Status: offline
|
I'm glad to see a good discussion going on this forum concerning creation & evolution...
For those who are interested in studying this topic more, might I recommend this PDF 31 day devotional, "REBUILDING THE FOUNDATIONS IN GENESIS"? You can download this document by clicking HERE. Blessings!
http://player.sermoncentral.com/c/chrisjordan/pdf/68981_3793.pdf
_____________________________
Chris Jordan
www.beausejourchurch.ca
http://thelandofpromise.blogspot.com/
(visit our website for free MP3 audio sermons, sermon notes, articles, devotionals and more).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 6/5/2008 9:18:23 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ChristopherJ
I'm glad to see a good discussion going on this forum concerning creation & evolution...
For those who are interested in studying this topic more, might I recommend this PDF 31 day devotional, "REBUILDING THE FOUNDATIONS IN GENESIS"? You can download this document by clicking HERE. Blessings!
http://player.sermoncentral.com/c/chrisjordan/pdf/68981_3793.pdf
Pastor Jordan asks:
quote:
If Adam and Eve were not actual, historical figures, who really disobeyed
God and ate the forbidden fruit, then why did Jesus have to come into the world and die?
Paul answers:
quote:
For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Jesus did not die to redeem us from Adam's sin, but to set us free of our own.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 6/6/2008 1:55:48 AM
|
|
|
ChristopherJ
Posts: 215
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Canada (The True North Strong and Free!)
Status: offline
|
Gluadys,
What about what Paul wrote in Romans 5:12 then? How do you interpret it?
"Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."
Blessings! :)
_____________________________
Chris Jordan
www.beausejourchurch.ca
http://thelandofpromise.blogspot.com/
(visit our website for free MP3 audio sermons, sermon notes, articles, devotionals and more).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 6/6/2008 7:24:27 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ChristopherJ
Gluadys,
What about what Paul wrote in Romans 5:12 then? How do you interpret it?
"Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."
Blessings! :)
The key phrase here is that death passed to all, not because of Adam's sin but "for that all have sinned"
In fact, you had to insert the name Adam here since that is not what Paul wrote, but what you interpreted it to mean.
Not saying you are wrong. In another place Paul does use "Adam", but says explicitly that he does so in the sense that Adam is a figure of Christ. So we have to consider what "Adam" meant to Paul, and that is not necessarily what it means to us. Paul was schooled in rabbinical thought, in which Adam as often stands for the whole human race as for one person.
There is a Talmudic saying that the creation of humanity is depicted as the creation of a single man so that we would understand that to destroy a single man is the equivalent of destroying the whole human race.
Paul's meaning is plain whether one uses the single person, or the representative person concept of Adam. But Paul, being Paul, is probably considering the representative or collective person first and foremost. That is more typical of his style.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
