10,000 Clergy members endorse evolution

You really didnt say anything erasmus, ID doesnt explain anything about the mechanism behind ID, only that everything appears to have been designed.

the earth orbits the sun in a galaxy in our universe?! thats madness! light appears to be both a wave and a particle? ludicrous! There is nothing ordinary about science, some of it is very shocking.
But what do you think would be more intelligent and beautiful, creating us through evolution, or just creating us in an instant?

 

No you don't. For example, Young-Earth creationists don't even think that anything was around (usually) more than 10,000 years ago, and that there is esentially no change from how the organisms wre created. Lots of people also think that no god created anyhting. Some people think that God created life on earth, but then took his "hands off" and let natural processes go. Others still think that a different form of a god created earth in a much different way, like the creation ideas from the first nations (I use the first nations as an example because I am sort of familiar with some of their stories) like the muskrat and the mud.

 

Yes, my comment was definately abriged. I agree with your additions.


My point is that there are so many different opinions/ideas of what "evolution" really is and so there will be just as many ideas of the degree as to which it relates to a creationist standpoint.

I, personally believe in creation, but also believe in a certian degree of evolution.

 

HEY.

Did you read my post? I went to the effort of putting them there, you should at least glance at them. If there's a problem you have with something in there, let me know, but don't keep spouting the same old stuff that I've already clarified.

1. From a scientific point of view, it's all but inevitable that the energy brought into the early chemical systems created organic molecules. The lightning, the sunshine, maybe even volcanos, whatever. Organic molecules. That is not a theory, that is testable, and has been tested and retested. To initiate the process of evolution, you do not need life. You need something that can mimic life by reproducing. Replication. That's all you need. That is definitely not an impossible probability. Creating organic molecules is not demonstrating intelligent design. They don't sit there with a microscope and atomic tweezers sticking atoms together. They sit there and mimic the natural chemical and energetic conditions of early earth to see if organic molecules are produced. And they are.

2. Natural Selection cannot favor devolution. If you knew enough about mutations, you would know that they don't work like that. The vast majority of mutations have no effect at all. For a mutation to have an effect on evolution/devolution, it must first be in the reproductive cell that becomes the offspring, then it must hit an important part of the genetic code, and then it must survive the DNA maintainance functions. If you wanna talk odds, the probability of just surviving the DNA maintainance functions is less than 10^-13. As a percentage, that's 0.00000000001%, if I'm not mistaken. Most mutations are bad, as you have said, and those individuals don't do as well as the normal ones, so the status quo remains. If a good mutation occurs, which is rare, that individual will do better, survive longer, and ultimately reproduce enough to have it's beneficial mutation disproportionately represented in the next generation.

That's not too hard for you is it? Maybe you should read it a couple times to get the full effect, but spouting the same old crap and exaggerating proven science doesn't make a case. It makes you look like an idiot.

 

Strong King, many offspring!

Man favored by G-d, many riches, much happiness!

 

Adaption and Evolution....Kinda like "all squres are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares" right?

 

Jesus throught His entire ministery refered to the Old Testament. When He spoke of the end times He told us to read the Book of Daniel, when He spoke of His fulfilment of Prophecy He told us to read what the prophecies said of Him in the Old Testament. When He spoke of His second Coming He said it would be like Noah's flood. The idea that the Old Testament was make believe never entered the picture. The Bible did point out that in the end, the world would reject the truth of the Bible. Jesus spoke of the flood story as fact, not a myth. If even one of these stories were made up then the whole Bible could not be believed. Because many of the stories are all connected. You can not have a Book of truth built on lies. The prophecies of the Bible were literal and that is why Jesus fulfilled all three hundred of them in the Old Testament. And the prophecies of the time of the end are literal, and that is why we have Jews back in Israel, Jerusalem recaptured, and a sealed East Gate, and Israel surrounded by enemies.

 

Im sorry I am not enthusiastic about your posts Freakersoup.
You are writing weird things which are untrue and most of the time its pretty clear you have made them up youself - or are copying what you heard some other hoaxster write and you dont know enough but to believe them.

Honestly, no personal offence intended here.
Its just that I cant get excited about posts in which I instantly recognise are invalid.
Such was yours.
No offence intended.

 

Hey it's ok. Maybe you just have a hard time arguing with a biology major who knows a little about evolution.

 

I do not believe you were a successful biology student because you appear to know almost nothing about Evolutionism and, in fact, you have grossly misrepresented it on more than a few occasions.

Or are you refering to 'FeelingGroovy' who does appear to be a Biology Major.
He actually made a very very good point which I think really needs to be brought up here:

This is so important and its easily the way most people go stumbling right off the starting blocks over and over.
"Evolution'
No better example would be TalkOrigins Propaganda site which starts off with the deliberately confusing and remarkably 'Orwellian Doublespeak' primer:
"Evolution is both a theory and a fact"

Wowzers.

Just to put it this way:
Evolution definately does happen.
All the time.
Everywhere.
The Tires on your Car are 'Evolving' throughout the Summer.
The ball of my thumb was aggravated and is now 'Evolving' a Callous.

You can even get fancy here and assign 'Beneficial Evolution' to these too.
If you tires are getting smoother as you go into Dry Summer conditions with smooth roads than you may very well be experiencing 'Beneficial Evolution' as they grip the road better and give you more traction.
(bad if its evolving to smoothness during winter or rain)

I can say that the callous on my thumb is a 'beneficial' evolution because its leaving a thicker layer of protective skin behind.

What everyone needs to know is that the debate is actually about a certain kind of 'Evolution' in which it is theorised that there is a net gain in complexity and added or 'novel' information.

This is what is meant by 'Evolutionism' whenever you see me or others saying they have a problem with it.

One of the ways I try and communicate the distinctions is by using the word 'Devolution'.
Groovy gives a great example of a situation where something can 'devolve' but yet it can also happen to benefit the survivors (but not the whole, who are now dead).
Thats great.
However that is simply put not the type of 'Evolution' that an 'Evolutionist' needs to go the other direction.
Upward.
ADDING New Genetic information.

(and i realise there is now a way to argue semantics over what 'new' means)

Anyways.. Im way overtired from Catstevens and I really just wanted to draw attention to why the word "Evolve" is a stumbling block and why these debates would really be benefited by making clear what the 'Evolutionist' really means and intends to mean or say when using that word.

Im not even sure its even helpful to use the word to tell you the truth.

 

I personally think that adaptation and evolution can be very different things. You can mean adaptation of an organism or group of organisms within their lifetime or adaptation of a species over many many generations. In the latter case "adaptation" and "evolution" have similar meaning.

 

No matter what type of "evolution" you are referring to, it can only happen as a result of rendom genetic variations or mutations. One can also go so far as to refute the word "random" used above and state that it, as is everything, is not merely "random" but is, however, under the control of God.

 

I'm not posting any pics of me in a lab coat if that's what you're after. No offense, FG, but I have yet to publish my own work yet.

So, Erasmus, instead of suggesting that I'm a bad student, why don't you point out where I made mistakes? Maybe you should clear some stuff up for me.

 

Hey dudes, let's be real here. Opinions are opinions and just as valid as whether they come from someone with an advanced degree or not. However experience can teach us many things and it just so happens that with advanced degrees comes enlightening experiences and hence some degree of enhanced knowledge.


This a very philosophical question to be discussed where there can never be an overall right or wrong answer, only what we feel is most accurate personally.

 

Im just thankful that everyone has agreed to dump the entirely useless terms 'Microevolution' and 'Macroevolution'.
Totally annoying and helpful to no one.

Again, I think its a problem when Evolution (the word) can mean either Variations or Mutations.
The reason its a problem is because you get people (esp here) who then confuse themselves because they cant make a distinction.
Natural Selection is 'Evolution'
and
Mutations are 'Evolution
Therefore (in their minds)
They think that since one is observable and understood then we know that other is somehow a valid mechanism too!
Right?

The truth is that Natural Selection should be called 'Devolution' (tm) and actually Mutations are also (on the whole) 'Devolving'.
.
.
.
but a theory that somehow mutations are adding novel genetic information and somehow, against all odds being carried on and replicated into the pool to be selected from - now thats the 'Evolution' thats being debated about.

Seriously, nobody needs to convince me that offspring are descending from (selecting from) an already existing pool of variations.
I think thats great.

Dont have to convince me that mutations happen.
Dont need to convince me they are (usually) eliminated from the already existing pool of variation to choose from.

What I DO NOT agree with is a 'theory' in which someone just supposes that, in another time, in another place, where the rules 'must' have been different, somehow a 'good' mutation ADDED some complex working information and then went on to dominate the pool.
OMG.. that is a WILD UNDERSTATEMENT of what the 'Evolutionist' is actually needing to assert before even STARTING to create a hypothetical mechanism.

 

then i guess your problem comes form a lack of understanding mutations in evolution?

 

How so?

 

^^

 

Are you saying that mutations can't cause increase in DNA? Length of genome? Something along those lines?

 

Nice Try, Freaker.
Try baiting someone who doesnt know better.