I'm not sure that any of this can be proven conclusively one way or the other. Furthermore, I think it is the height of arrogance to presume that we can conclusively state anything that happened thousands of years ago, let along millions of years ago. I'm not saying that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, nor am I saying that the Creationist theory is wrong. I'm saying that we can't prove anything..... It seems to me that there is "evidence" to no end to prove what anyone wants proven.
I'm not sure that any of this can be proven conclusively one way or the other. Furthermore, I think it is the height of arrogance to presume that we can conclusively state anything that happened thousands of years ago, let along millions of years ago. I'm not saying that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, nor am I saying that the Creationist theory is wrong. I'm saying that we can't prove anything..... It seems to me that there is "evidence" to no end to prove what anyone wants proven.
Dooj-Im not sure what your statement means,"Havent we learned anything while in TWI," we are all quit different here on GSC. Some thru the baby out with the water..and the end result they have started all over in thier belief system.I have stayed with the thought what I learned in Twi wasnt 100 percent wrong..I took time to rebuild my own thought system that filter's what I consider still valuable info..Ive also have been in the Healthcare/ Pharma Industry for 12 yrs..which lent to me a greater insight to science and systems..
In LCM's WAP class, he covered this portion of the Form and Void period very deeply. It was the only information I considered very valuable.Before I throught out my class materials from TWi, this was the only portion of the sylbus I kept.
Yep, this is just as hard as discerning Johnny's thread on Vaginia's, dont ya think..
I for one would rather spend time here than chasing johnny in his thread..
In LCM's WAP class, he covered this portion of the Form and Void period very deeply. It was the only information I considered very valuable.Before I throught out my class materials from TWi, this was the only portion of the sylbus I kept.
. . .
You could probably google "Gap Theory" and find the same info. to print out (Then you can toss the rest of the syllabus )
Our history in TWI was such that many of us thought that we could prove conclusively certain things from the Bible. My twenty years out of TWI have taught me that nearly anyone can prove anything they want to using scripture.
The same is true of the law. The same can be true in science - such as in this case of evolution vs. creation.
As for that other thread - I have no idea who was chasing Jonny anywhere...and I won't discuss it further here.
Thanks for the Google links..I am moving to New Hampshire this week and all my items were delivered today..when I get time, I will probaly dig it out..The details are very good..
It is interesting that the word "replenish" in Genesis 2.28 means "fill" as in verse 22. However, the article dodges "without form and void" tohu va bohu in 1.2 and in Isaiah 45.18.
I found this "Ask a scientist" article that talks about proof in scientific terms.
First let me say that I am not a biologist, but a chemist. So I
do not have a very detailed answer to your question. I first want to say that
scientists have a very special meaning for the word "proof." In fact, it is
so difficult to "prove" a scientific theory that I can honestly say that there
are NO pieces of scientific knowledge that have actually been "proved."
(snip)
This is particularly true in science because scientists can be very
skeptical. The approach many scientists take is to try to disprove a theory.
That way they know it is false. Evolution is a theory that has not yet been
disproved.
(snip)
There are two
large lines of evidence to support this theory. The first is fossils. The
other is HOMOLOGY. All life on earth, according to evolutionary theory,
evolved from common ancestors. All life on earth is related to each other; we
are all of the same family. Modern whales have hip bones in their flesh that
they do not use because they do not walk. They probably evolved from mammals
that did walk. Paleontologists have found a fossil whale called Pakicetus
that has more developed rear legs. Older whales should look more like their
ancestors if evolution is correct. Without evolution, we could not understand
This is simply false. Evolution is evolution, and the only ones I've heard using terms like "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are creationists.
My freshman biology book disagrees with you.
. . .
Also for the record, there won't be a complete lesson on evolution here from me or anyone. This is a message board, not a college. Where things like creationism that don't require facts or evidence can be explained quickly and easily, science like evolution requires lots of reading, time, and better teaching than I am capable of.
Yes I was trying to show you that you don't even understand what you are defending. You assume their are facts and believe what the biologists tell you.
I had a good prof. in my undergrad classes. He used to cut articles out of newspapers and but them on our tests and ask "Comment on this"
He was showing us how gullible the general public is when it comes to science. (Who said ". . Crap like that is why we are becoming the laughingstock of the world, knowledge-wise."? I think it has little to do with this museum)
If you truly want to learn about it, go to college and take a bunch of science classes.
Well, I'll be teaching the freshmen labs this fall at a nearby university. You're welcome to join me.
I don't even pretend to know the answer and, honestly, I don't really care. *shrug* What matters is that we're here and there are some incredible things to learn while we are. Science is absolutely fascinating now that I'm not forced to study it under the tutelage of some extremely boring professor. (No offense, Bolshevik, I'm sure you're an excellent instructor )
Does it HAVE to be evolution or creation? Is it not possible that there's some other answer out there? What's to be gained from knowing the answer?
Does it HAVE to be evolution or creation? Is it not possible that there's some other answer out there? What's to be gained from knowing the answer? [/color]
It doesn't. I find both sides of the argument(s) fascinating. I've been convinced of each side of the argument at different times.
I'd like to see Creation Science get more attention. An unchallenged theory is like an unchallenged political party.
It's sad that such a museum was ever funded and made. Crap like that is why we are becoming the laughingstock of the world, knowledge-wise.
Groucho, I think your point of view is fine. There is plenty of room to believe that other beings, whether gods or aliens, are responsible for the evolution of life on this planet. However, the process of evolution is as much a scientific fact as gravity. Plenty of experiments have been done to prove evolution, and all the specialized breeds of dogs are perfect examples of it. If you don't believe in evolution, then you also don't believe in poodles.
quote: don't think you need faith of any sort to consider the creationist viewpoint.
I think you need a TON of faith to consider the evolutionist pov. You weren't there, no concrete proof, you can clearly see that many things exist that man did NOT make that have clearly intelligent design (the human body, trees, the earth itself, ad infinitum) yet you blindly close your eyes and arrogantly say la la la la at even the slightest challenge to your evolutionary faith. Sound familiar?
quote: What convinced me that evolution is more than 'just a theory' (ie., a word that many people mistake for just 'guesswork'), is how its a lot more compatible with biological, natural, astronomical, and other laws and sciences; plus the explanations given by the evolutionary biologists just flow a lot smoother and more logically than the biblical account.
LCM, for all his AOS talk about how you can't kill devil spirits, spent the last 6 years of his presidency trying to do just that: he had his doctrine of harassing evil, unproductive evil, destructive evil. He had corps go through your house looking in your underwear drawers for 'objects of evil'. He had people account for every 15 minute segment of their day. I can't help comparing that with Esther. The devil was working through a man who wanted to exterminate all Jews. The man God was working through, Mordecai, told Esther to talk to the king NOW. He didn't tell her to clean up her living area and all this other nonsense to keep devil spirits out of her life; he told her to deal directly with the people who could make a difference. She obeyed him; game over. LCM was trying to build a wall and keep the enemy out rather than live in freedom like a spirit filled believer is supposed to per TWI. You're no different than LCM, Garth.
For one thing, there is no evolutionary "bible". At least creationists have the guts to say "this is from God, that's why it's right!" Luke talks about having perfect understanding of all things from the very first. Creationists have the Creator backing them up. All evolutionists have is their egos. No holy men of God, no thus sayeth the Lord, just so called educated, so called professional, so called scientists with their ego driven opinions 10 % synchronized. Sounds like a LOT of guesswork to me.
Garth you have as much venom and hostility toward creationists as LCM had for those who "might" have devil spirits. I challenge you to give me even ONE example of evolutionary "doctrine" being more compatible than the "biblical account". By the way, which "holy man of evolution" wrote it? Darwin? John Lennon? Let me see just how scientific minded you really are.
Here's a post I put in a creation-evolution debate forum:
My understanding of microevolution is like in the case with dogs. I've heard that the more purepred they are, the more disease prone they are.
With that information I would think that the more (extremely) different a population is from the "mutt" form, the more likely it is to die off. Thus macroevolution would not occur.
Here's a response:
Most of what you're referring to is explained by hybrid vigour, but also, the trouble is that a genome has no way of knowing how far it is from what it used to be. There's no 'tether' mechanism, because there's nothing to tether it to - ancestors and their genomes are gone. It's true that dogs tend to revert to a fox/wolf-like morphology if they're left to go feral, but that's because there's a comparatively comfortable niche for them to do so and having settled into that niche morphologically, evolution can then begin to select mutations that improve health, longevity, etc.
It's also worth noting that although the morphology may 'revert' to something similar to their wild ancestors, their genome isn't going back to what it was - it's just changing and the changes are being selected.
If there was a major upheaval in the environment and there was no longer a suitable niche for fox-like dogs, feral dogs left to breed would not converge on that form, but it's quite unlikely they'd die out altogether, so they's converge on some other form. The apparent stasis that you're observing is provided by selective factors in the environment.
I feel more strengthened in my anti-evolution position since he actually gave me more info to argue my position. His seems to be completely hypothetical.
quote: don't think you need faith of any sort to consider the creationist viewpoint.
I think you need a TON of faith to consider the evolutionist pov. You weren't there, no concrete proof, you can clearly see that many things exist that man did NOT make that have clearly intelligent design (the human body, trees, the earth itself, ad infinitum) yet you blindly close your eyes and arrogantly say la la la la at even the slightest challenge to your evolutionary faith. Sound familiar?
Johniam I understand your point and I have no argument with it. I was quoted and I just want to explain that I believe that evolution can be disproved with science alone. You don't need to even crack open a Bible. People get labeled as being on one side of the argument or the other. But disproving one side doesn't prove the other.
Why are kangaroos and koalas only found in Australia? Why was the coqui treefrog only found in Puerto Rico until recently? (It stowed away on a ship and now sings happily in Hawaii now also.) If the kangaroo, koala and the coqui emerged from the Ark on Mt. Ararat, wouldn't their populations be more evenly distributed across the globe. How did they survive the en masse swim across shark infested waters to their present habitats? When did they unlearn to swim? Wasn't it because of the unique flora and fauna of the very isolated Galapagos that gave rise to the notion of natural selection and evolution in the first place?
What provisions were made on the Ark for the climatic needs of penguins, polar bears and walrus? Did the Ark have refrigerated compartments? How about the tropical rainforest environment necessary to sustain the toucan and howler monkeys? A steam room maybe?
In answer to Bolshi's question about Dr. Collins not denying evolution because of his fear of losing his position, Dr. Collins in his book indicated if credible evidence was found that challenged natural selection as the explanation of why life is on earth it would come forward. Nobel Prizes and grant money follow such discoveries.
Marsupials are not unique to Australia. (I mentioned the possum earlier) Just because a critter is found only in one place now, doesn't mean it hasn't been anywhere else. Europe is missing a whole host of species it once had due to humans (The Romans wiped out quit a bit of animals for gladiator games) There are big animals in Africa now, but that doesn't mean those species weren't found elsewere during recorded history.
I believe microevolution can explain some of the Ark stuff (I don't want to get into Bible talk too much). Penguins are not unique to Antartica.
Galapagos. Darwin did not invent the evolution idea. I think people assume no one else noticed species diversifying until the 1800s. Domesticated animals are an example. (Some even point to evidence of evolution in the Bible, I won't discuss that, you can assume I made that up)
Also, just because we can't fully explain the Ark and why things are the way the are now, doesn't prove evolution. A theory, even when later proven false or incomplete, can explain a lot of phenomena. Just because the evolution theory can be used to explain a number of questions, does not make the evolution theory itself true.
Marsupials are not unique to Australia. (I mentioned the possum earlier) Just because a critter is found only in one place now, doesn't mean it hasn't been anywhere else. Europe is missing a whole host of species it once had due to humans (The Romans wiped out quit a bit of animals for gladiator games) There are big animals in Africa now, but that doesn't mean those species weren't found elsewere during recorded history.
I believe microevolution can explain some of the Ark stuff (I don't want to get into Bible talk too much). Penguins are not unique to Antartica.
Galapagos. Darwin did not invent the evolution idea. I think people assume no one else noticed species diversifying until the 1800s. Domesticated animals are an example. (Some even point to evidence of evolution in the Bible, I won't discuss that, you can assume I made that up)
Also, just because we can't fully explain the Ark and why things are the way the are now, doesn't prove evolution. A theory, even when later proven false or incomplete, can explain a lot of phenomena. Just because the evolution theory can be used to explain a number of questions, does not make the evolution theory itself true.
edited fer gramma
You may want to read the link I posted about the proof of evolution. Essentially, it says that scientists have a high standard of proof and very few theories have been proven. Evolution like Einstein's theory of relativity have not been proven but continue to the best explanations within the scope of their scientific study because of subsequent discoveries, criticism and refinements. Once a theory is put forward, scientists being the skeptics they are set out to disprove it. The fact that evolution has not been disproven after almost a century and a half should be a testament of its validity.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
17
23
8
55
Popular Days
Jun 18
28
Jun 14
26
Jun 20
23
Jun 19
20
Top Posters In This Topic
likeaneagle 17 posts
GarthP2000 23 posts
T-Bone 8 posts
Bolshevik 55 posts
Popular Days
Jun 18 2007
28 posts
Jun 14 2007
26 posts
Jun 20 2007
23 posts
Jun 19 2007
20 posts
doojable
I'm not sure that any of this can be proven conclusively one way or the other. Furthermore, I think it is the height of arrogance to presume that we can conclusively state anything that happened thousands of years ago, let along millions of years ago. I'm not saying that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, nor am I saying that the Creationist theory is wrong. I'm saying that we can't prove anything..... It seems to me that there is "evidence" to no end to prove what anyone wants proven.
Didn't we learn anything from our time in TWI?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
YES Dooj YES!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Dooj-Im not sure what your statement means,"Havent we learned anything while in TWI," we are all quit different here on GSC. Some thru the baby out with the water..and the end result they have started all over in thier belief system.I have stayed with the thought what I learned in Twi wasnt 100 percent wrong..I took time to rebuild my own thought system that filter's what I consider still valuable info..Ive also have been in the Healthcare/ Pharma Industry for 12 yrs..which lent to me a greater insight to science and systems..
In LCM's WAP class, he covered this portion of the Form and Void period very deeply. It was the only information I considered very valuable.Before I throught out my class materials from TWi, this was the only portion of the sylbus I kept.
Yep, this is just as hard as discerning Johnny's thread on Vaginia's, dont ya think..
I for one would rather spend time here than chasing johnny in his thread..
Isnt he a kick:)
Edited by likeaneagleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You could probably google "Gap Theory" and find the same info. to print out (Then you can toss the rest of the syllabus
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
LAE - Here's what I was saying.....
Our history in TWI was such that many of us thought that we could prove conclusively certain things from the Bible. My twenty years out of TWI have taught me that nearly anyone can prove anything they want to using scripture.
The same is true of the law. The same can be true in science - such as in this case of evolution vs. creation.
As for that other thread - I have no idea who was chasing Jonny anywhere...and I won't discuss it further here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Here's one site I found in Googling "Gap Theory"
Gap Theory
Here's the page that Google kicked out:
Google - Gap Theory
Just thought I'd be helpful.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Thanks for the Google links..I am moving to New Hampshire this week and all my items were delivered today..when I get time, I will probaly dig it out..The details are very good..
20 yrs out..PFAL is very outdated info.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Wow, that' s a first.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I can be nice when I want to....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
It is interesting that the word "replenish" in Genesis 2.28 means "fill" as in verse 22. However, the article dodges "without form and void" tohu va bohu in 1.2 and in Isaiah 45.18.
I found this "Ask a scientist" article that talks about proof in scientific terms.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askas...logy/bio039.htm
More on the terrestial ancestors of whales.
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
My freshman biology book disagrees with you.
Yes I was trying to show you that you don't even understand what you are defending. You assume their are facts and believe what the biologists tell you.I had a good prof. in my undergrad classes. He used to cut articles out of newspapers and but them on our tests and ask "Comment on this"
He was showing us how gullible the general public is when it comes to science. (Who said ". . Crap like that is why we are becoming the laughingstock of the world, knowledge-wise."? I think it has little to do with this museum)
Well, I'll be teaching the freshmen labs this fall at a nearby university. You're welcome to join me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I don't even pretend to know the answer and, honestly, I don't really care. *shrug* What matters is that we're here and there are some incredible things to learn while we are. Science is absolutely fascinating now that I'm not forced to study it under the tutelage of some extremely boring professor. (No offense, Bolshevik, I'm sure you're an excellent instructor
)
Does it HAVE to be evolution or creation? Is it not possible that there's some other answer out there? What's to be gained from knowing the answer?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It doesn't. I find both sides of the argument(s) fascinating. I've been convinced of each side of the argument at different times.
I'd like to see Creation Science get more attention. An unchallenged theory is like an unchallenged political party.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Here's a free online book on evolution if anyone's interested
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309051916
Here's one on anti creation science/Intelligent Design. (I love how they say they are "fighting" the creation scientists)
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/
Here's a creation science site:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/...ginningTOC.html
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Oh, do we have a physicist in the house?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Bolshevik-
Great websites..this is right up my alley(understanding)..
If anyone unerstands the phrase"The Deep", I would love to get a better understanding.
Maybe we can hear from more contributor's rather detractors..
Carry on..Maybe there is more understanding to come..
Edited by likeaneagleLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: don't think you need faith of any sort to consider the creationist viewpoint.
I think you need a TON of faith to consider the evolutionist pov. You weren't there, no concrete proof, you can clearly see that many things exist that man did NOT make that have clearly intelligent design (the human body, trees, the earth itself, ad infinitum) yet you blindly close your eyes and arrogantly say la la la la at even the slightest challenge to your evolutionary faith. Sound familiar?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: What convinced me that evolution is more than 'just a theory' (ie., a word that many people mistake for just 'guesswork'), is how its a lot more compatible with biological, natural, astronomical, and other laws and sciences; plus the explanations given by the evolutionary biologists just flow a lot smoother and more logically than the biblical account.
LCM, for all his AOS talk about how you can't kill devil spirits, spent the last 6 years of his presidency trying to do just that: he had his doctrine of harassing evil, unproductive evil, destructive evil. He had corps go through your house looking in your underwear drawers for 'objects of evil'. He had people account for every 15 minute segment of their day. I can't help comparing that with Esther. The devil was working through a man who wanted to exterminate all Jews. The man God was working through, Mordecai, told Esther to talk to the king NOW. He didn't tell her to clean up her living area and all this other nonsense to keep devil spirits out of her life; he told her to deal directly with the people who could make a difference. She obeyed him; game over. LCM was trying to build a wall and keep the enemy out rather than live in freedom like a spirit filled believer is supposed to per TWI. You're no different than LCM, Garth.
For one thing, there is no evolutionary "bible". At least creationists have the guts to say "this is from God, that's why it's right!" Luke talks about having perfect understanding of all things from the very first. Creationists have the Creator backing them up. All evolutionists have is their egos. No holy men of God, no thus sayeth the Lord, just so called educated, so called professional, so called scientists with their ego driven opinions 10 % synchronized. Sounds like a LOT of guesswork to me.
Garth you have as much venom and hostility toward creationists as LCM had for those who "might" have devil spirits. I challenge you to give me even ONE example of evolutionary "doctrine" being more compatible than the "biblical account". By the way, which "holy man of evolution" wrote it? Darwin? John Lennon? Let me see just how scientific minded you really are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Here's a post I put in a creation-evolution debate forum:
Here's a response:I feel more strengthened in my anti-evolution position since he actually gave me more info to argue my position. His seems to be completely hypothetical.
Here's a link to an explanation of hybrid vigor:
http://www.answers.com/topic/heterosis-1?cat=technology
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Johniam I understand your point and I have no argument with it. I was quoted and I just want to explain that I believe that evolution can be disproved with science alone. You don't need to even crack open a Bible. People get labeled as being on one side of the argument or the other. But disproving one side doesn't prove the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Marsupials are not unique to Australia. (I mentioned the possum earlier) Just because a critter is found only in one place now, doesn't mean it hasn't been anywhere else. Europe is missing a whole host of species it once had due to humans (The Romans wiped out quit a bit of animals for gladiator games) There are big animals in Africa now, but that doesn't mean those species weren't found elsewere during recorded history.
I believe microevolution can explain some of the Ark stuff (I don't want to get into Bible talk too much). Penguins are not unique to Antartica.
Galapagos. Darwin did not invent the evolution idea. I think people assume no one else noticed species diversifying until the 1800s. Domesticated animals are an example. (Some even point to evidence of evolution in the Bible, I won't discuss that, you can assume I made that up)
Also, just because we can't fully explain the Ark and why things are the way the are now, doesn't prove evolution. A theory, even when later proven false or incomplete, can explain a lot of phenomena. Just because the evolution theory can be used to explain a number of questions, does not make the evolution theory itself true.
edited fer gramma
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Likeaneagle, you might find this interesting.
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dragon-history.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
You may want to read the link I posted about the proof of evolution. Essentially, it says that scientists have a high standard of proof and very few theories have been proven. Evolution like Einstein's theory of relativity have not been proven but continue to the best explanations within the scope of their scientific study because of subsequent discoveries, criticism and refinements. Once a theory is put forward, scientists being the skeptics they are set out to disprove it. The fact that evolution has not been disproven after almost a century and a half should be a testament of its validity.
Edited by oenophileLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Oenophile,
which link are you referring to?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.