this is how christians fumble up the evolution debate....?

Question

The mistake made by christians when debating evolution vs. creationism is that they assume that scientists have not sincerely and earnestly considered any evidence showing that evolution might be a weak theory and that creation is more plausible.

99% of scientists feel that evolution is true and they HAVE taken in consideration the claims of creationists.

these people are scientist for a living, for christ's sake.
This is what they do.
this is their trade.
how can you feel that you have seen all the evidence you need to see that evolution is junk science, while these people have devoted their entire lives to studying these things and will testify that it is perverse to say that evolution simply does not exist?
could it be that you don't really know that much about the complex of subjects of microbiology and macrobiology and you are basically just taking the word of other people who are affirming what you want to hear?

Imagine yourself sitting face to face with an evolutionary biologist. Do you think that you have enough knowledge that you could argue away evolution and carry on competent discourse with him? No because all you know is that evolution would make it unlikely that god exists and maybe a few simple other things you have heard from other Christians trying to fight evolution. You take THEIR word for it because it is what you want to hear. Amen.

those who are trying to argue with me on it are completely missing the point of everything i am saying. lol
No transitionary fossils?
scientist haven't discovered everything there is to be discovered, you should know that.
scientist know everything you are saying to me, they already KNOW. lol
they still believe the evidence is there to say and they feel that saying that evolution is completly dumb is as asburd as maturbating with your own feces. jeez

Answer 1

Christians fumble up the evolution "debate" whenever they engage in one, by not knowing the material that they try to debate. Debating a YEC about evolution is like debating something about the bible with someone who has never read it and hasn't a clue about what it says.

Case in point...paczjj15
- Where did the space for the universe come from?
-----It came from the Big Bang, which created space. Whether the BB was caused by God or purely natural causes is immaterial. This question has nothing at all to do with evolution. Evolution is biology, and the BB is physics. Two totally different fields. Anyone with at least a Junior High School education should know that, but - Where did the space for the universe come from? doesn't.

- Where did matter come from?
-----Exact same response as above, and equally appropriate.

- When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
-----This is a question that should be posed about abiogenesis (The Origin of Life). It doesn't involve evolution. Evolution is the theory that explains how life diversified AFTER abiogenesis. Again, two totally different fields, designed to answer totally different questions. Anyway, the appropriate response is...
-When
About 4 billion years ago, after the earth had formed and was cool enough to allow life as we know it. Maybe even sooner.
-Where
On earth, and likely on other planets too, but certainly on earth.
-How
Through biochemistry.
Do some reading. Catch up with the rest of us...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Abiogenesis
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis
Not that you will even bother to read the material. Experience with "debating" YEC's has shown me that they won't even bother, unless it is to read something they "think" they can shoot holes in, and everything after gets ignored, like all other facts they don't like to hear. But maybe another reader isn't quite as content to accept the ad hoc excuses conjured up by your kind.
-Dead matter
The matter isn't "dead." It is organic. Something that has never been alive can't be "dead." Organic matter is that which is associated with OR roduced by living organisms.
-It is a FACT that all of the necessary basic building blocks for life can be created by natural means, and that each of the several natural means through which they have been created in a laboratory are forces that would have been present on earth in its infancy. These same materials are abundant in space within comets, asteroids, and meteors.
It is a FACT that when these amino and fatty acids are mixed with each other, they SELF organize into long polymers (Proteins that are more complex than the amino acids they came from).
It is a FACT that when these polymers are heated in water, at such temperatures as one would find in a small puddle on a hot day, they for proteinoid microspheres, complete with a selectively permeable membrane. These microspheres, when artificially fossilized look identical to the earliest known fossilized bacteria of about 3,5 billion years old.
It is a FACT that when these microspheres are placed in a solution with amino and fatty acids, they absorb the material.

The early earth was covered, globally, with all of these natural chemistry experiments going on. Only one of these microspheres had to win the lottery, and be able to metabolize and reproduce. It only had to happen once, and there was at least one billion years for one of them to get it right.
It isn't beyond comprehension.

- With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
-----We don't know yet. That doesn't mean that we never will, and it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

-Also, have you done the research for evolution yourself? You're putting faith into other people that they're telling you the truth about it all.
-----The evidence is there, for anyone to review. Facts are facts. Facts don't change because of someone's different view. I don't put my faith in anybody to tell me what to believe. I have studied the evidence myself, that which is possible for me to study, anyway.

Here are the facts...
-No animal or plant has ever miraculously appeared, despite what the bible says in Genesis. All complex life (The first life in abiogenesis was much simpler than anything we know of today) must come from other life.
-All animals share DNA to some degree or another. Shared DNA is clearly proof of some degree of common ancestry, if not direct ancestry. If a child has half of your DNA, then that is proof that it is your child. If the child is not yours, but is related to you by some other familial connection, then you will still have some shared DNA. More so than a child that is totally unrelated to you. This kind of proof is irrefutable. If you doubt that, then the next time you know someone who has had a child return with a positive DNA test that affirms that a certain man is the father, tell him to argue that the DNA is similar because God used a template to create both of them, or that the DNA is the same because they faced the same challenges in existing.

You'll be laughed out of court.

ANOTHER case in point...Lover Of God
-WHERE ARE ALL THE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL RECORDS?
-----The earth IS littered with them, and the amazing thing is that there are many, many more yet to be discovered!
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Visit the site for more quick links.
-----Fish to Amphibians
Tiktaalik roseae
Osteolepis
Eusthenopteron
Panderichthys
Elginerpeton
Obruchevichthys
Hynerpeton
Tulerpeton
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega
Pederpes finneyae
Eryops
-----Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis
Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus
Paleothyris
-----Synapsid (mammal-like "reptiles") to mammals
Protoclepsydrops
Clepsydrops
Dimetrodon
Procynosuchus
Thrinaxodon
Yanoconodon
-----Diapsid reptiles to birds
Yixianosaurus
Pedopenna
Archeopteryx
Changchengornis
Confuciusornis
Ichthyornis
-----Evolution of whales
Pakicetus
Ambulocetus
Kutchicetus
Artiocetus
Dorudon
Basilosaurus
Eurhinodelphis
Mammalodon
-----Evolution of the horse
Hyracotherium
Mesohippus
Parahippus
Merychippus
Pliohippus
Equus
-----Non-human early apes to modern humans
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
Ardipithecus
Australopithecus
Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis
Homo erectus

Want some more?
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1180415,00.html?cnn=yes
A fish with fingers?

http://www.caecilian.org/
Legless amphibians

http://www.austmus.gov.au/factsheets/platypus.htm
The platypus is a living transitional species. It also has a fossil record.
http://www.geocities.com/hartwig_dellmour/Tetradactylus_1985.html
Legless lizards are still-living transitional species.

-Why are we not still evolving? If it is a true process, it should not pick a point and stop.
-----http://www.physorg.com/news11487.html
"Even as controversy continues over the theory of evolution, scientists say they've found the strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving.
University of Chicago researchers say they've found approximately 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection within the past 5,000 to 15,000 years, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

Scientists told The Times the changes may be the result of people leaving their hunting and gathering way of life for settlement and agriculture.

The finding also adds substantially to the evidence that human evolution did not grind to a halt in the distant past, as is assumed by many social scientists, the newspaper noted.

"There is ample evidence that selection has been a major driving point in our evolution during the last 10,000 years, and there is no reason to suppose that it has stopped," said Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago who headed the study.

Pritchard and his colleagues, Benjamin Voight, Sridhar Kudaravalli and Xiaoquan Wen, report their findings in the current issue of PLOS-Biology."


FACE IT!!!
You guys are batting ZERO!

Why is it so difficult for YEC's to imagine a God that uses natural laws to create?

There are other FACTS. I haven't even scratched the surface yet. Evolution evidence covers every field of science, not just one, and all of the evidence points to the same conclusion...that all life is interrelated. Whether you want to believe that humans evolved from earlier hominids, apes, monkeys, or pond scum, the evidence is that we came from something that shares a relationship with other life, and it wasn't a pile of blessed dirt.

Somehow, YEC's think it is better to have come from dirt than a monkey, but none of them has ever explained to me why.

EDIT 06/20/07.....1Peter3:15 said....
"Archaeopteryx is most often sited as a transitional fossils, however leading scientists confirm this was a fully flighted, perching bird, not a transitional form."

Not so. Name one bird that has TEETH! Name one bird that has a long, bony TAIL! Neither was Archaeopteryx pure dinosaur. The following is a list of Archaeopteryx's avian and dinosaur features. From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
AVIAN FEATURES:
1) Feathers.
Feathers are the diagnostic feature of modern birds. This is one of the main criterion for classifying Archae as a bird, as no other modern animal has feathers.
2) 2) Opposable hallux (big toe).
This also is a character of birds and not of dinosaurs. Although opposable big toes are found in other groups, they are not, as far as I am aware, found in dinosaurs. A reversed big toe is found in some dinosaurs however, and the condition is approached in some theropod dinosaurs.
3) Furcula (wishbone) formed of two clavicles fused together in the midline.
4) Pubis elongate and directed backward.

REPTILE/DINOSAURIAN FEATURES
1) Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered. IOW, Archaeopteryx did not have a bill. Can you name a bird that doesn't have a bill? I suppose we can already scratch the "Archaeopteryx was a bird" theory.
2) Trunk region vertebra are free.
In birds the trunk vertebrae are always fused.
3) ) Bones are pneumatic.
I.e. they appear to have air-sacs, as they do in birds and in some dinosaurs (e.g. Witmer 1990, Brooks 1993). It should be pointed out that previous claims suggesting the bones of Archae were not pneumatic (Lambrecht 1933; de Beer 1954), was based on negative evidence, i.e. that the bones do not exhibit pneumatic pores (through which the air sacs enter the bones) and the bones show none of the plumpness and bulges which characterise the pneumatic bones of modern birds. Britt et al. (1998) found evidence for the presence of pnematic bones in Archaeopteryx:

"Here we re-examine two specimens of _Archaeopteryx_. These specimens show evidence of vertebral pneumaticity in the cervical and anterior thorasic vertebrae, thus confirming the phylogenetic continuity between the pneumatic systems of non-avialan theropods and living birds" (Britt et al. 1998, p. 374)
4) Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section
A Character shared with dromaeosaurs but not with other dinosaurs or birds
5) Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.
This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the mid-brain and compresses it downwards. Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between dinosaurs and birds (e.g. Alexander 1990).
6) Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds.
7) Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets.
This is the same as the archosaur pattern. In birds the vertebrae are different, they have a saddle-shaped surface:
8) Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).
9) Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth.
No modern bird possess teeth
10) Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum.
Birds have stout ribs with uncinate processes (braces between them) and articulate with the sternum.
...And the list goes on.

El Chistoso

Answer 2

There are things that everyone should keep in mind on the battle between science and religon. First of all, these are both methods to finding a truth. Because the methods are so different, they tend to battle each other. Everyone should keep in mind, the whole,truth thing. How often does any one do so real serious research into what someone tells them, whether it be verbally or something you read? Humans tend to be very trusting, and beleive everything they read or hear. Read the bible, read some science journals, and come to your own conclusions. I did. I'm an atheist, through and through, and although I'm just a meesly undergrad, I am prepared to devote my entire life to science.
And as far as evolution goes, to whoever said humans aren't evolving, read some scientific journals. Think about the fact that our pinkys are shrinking, and blonde hair is slowly fading out, amongst many other things. It's because liveing the way we do, few need those things anymore. I'm sure theres tons of other examples but those are the ones I'm most familar.

Answer 3

I'm going to answer some of the opponents of evolution because I'm bored...
First off, most opponents of evolution don't actually understand what "The theory of evolution" is. The theory takes fossil evidence that various organisms have phenotypic variations (i.e. they're different) over multiple generations and provides an explanation for that. The fossil record is FACT, and looking at it you can see obvious changes in the same organisms over time.
The THEORETICAL part of the theory is the "how?" i.e. Does evolution happen through natural selection? (literally every peer-reviewed scientific article on the subject says yes) The fact that the fossil record is incomplete does not hurt evolution, because evolution explains the parts of the fossil record we have.
Additionally, we should not expect the fossil record to be complete because of the low likelihood of a dead organism turning into a fossil. It happens so rarely we should actually be surprised that the fossil record is as detailed as it is. Chances are we will not find every "missing link" in the fossil record. However, this is not the goal of evolution. The goal is to explain why organisms changed over time, and it does that successfully.
first, paczjj15: Asking where the space and matter in the universe come from does not actually attack evolution, and I'm not sure I understand the point of those questions. Even if they came from God, I'm not sure that would disprove evolution (because evolution concerns what happens with matter, not what created it.)
Life came from "dead" matter through the spontaneous, random creation of amino acids (the building blocks of life) in the early earth. The Miller-Urey experiment in 1953 at the University of Chicago demonstrated that, not only was this possible, it was likely. It took their experiment about a week to spontaneously create over half of the amino acids necessary for the production of life. The rest took a little bit more time.
Life did not "learn" to reproduce itself because the earliest life was not conscious. Life started to reproduce itself through some pretty simple evolutionary mechanisms. The first life did not reproduce with anything, because it reproduced through asexual reproduction (like the Virgin Mary).
I've read the rest of the questions from the contender ministries website and most of them are nonsense. For example,
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
This is based on a horrible misunderstanding of how evolution works. the "Drive to survive" does not apply to either the species or the individual, but instead to the genetic code contained in the individual's DNA. Anybody with a passing knowledge of evolution knows that. The reason an organism "wants" more of its kind is because they will have a genetic code very similar to its own, thus increasing the likelihood of preserving that genetic code.
There was however, one (somewhat legitimate) question which I think we need to grant to the creationists:
One of the questions asked if it was possible that similarities between different types of organisms indicated a creator. Of course it is possible. There could be a creator who made everything. The evidence just happens to point the other way. Maybe we'll discover some new evidence that suggests otherwise, but until then I'm going to believe in evolution.

Answer 4

Really 99%? And you can support that how?

As for transitional fossils - name one that is not debatable. Archaeopteryx is most often sited as a transitional fossils, however leading scientists confirm this was a fully flighted, perching bird, not a transitional form.

“In Eichstátt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed on just about anything that was covered there on this creature, but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Only a tiny minority thought that it was actually one of the small, lightly built coelurosaurian dinosaurs [small lightly framed dinosaurs.” - Dr David Menton, Associate Professor of Anatomy at the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri

I guess I would be in the 1% of scientists (by your calculations and having a zoology undergrad & work towards a masters) that questions the validity of evolution. Defined as change over time - yes we see this and this is not inconsistent with a Biblical account of creation. However, the definition of evolution never just means change over time - it is often extrapolated to mean molecules to man and there begins the challenge to the Bible. Where evolution says there is a phylogenetic tree - creation says there are several “trees”, an orchard with original created kinds that have adapted to what we see today.

Testable and repeatable science can neither prove evolution (molecules to man) or creation because both accounts happened in the past. The evidence is in the present and it is with our bias that we interpret the evidence, such as the picture of the old lady/young lady. Depending on how you look at it you see two different pictures.

http://sharpbrains.wordpress.com/2006/09/10/what-do-you-see/

Any good scientist will admit to his/her bias.

I would be interested in questions (not unsubstantiated opinions) that challenge our bias and get to discussing real science.



ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
O.k. – so if I had more time I would address more of the “transitional fossils” mentioned. However, since I brought up Archaeopteryx I thought I would come back to that one.

First, elchistoso69 I commend the detail that was provided to support the avian & reptilian characteristics. Although, I would like to go into more detail here are a few additional thoughts since I am running out of time…

Archaeopteryx has “reptilian” like claws on its wings and so do ostriches, members of the ratites. Other living birds in this category also include: cassowary, emu, kiwi, and rhea, all of which have NO keel and are ALL in class Aves – birds.

Archaeopteryx has a bony tail along with penguins, which also have unfused vertabra.

Archaeopteryx has teeth and although no living birds have socketed teeth, some fossil birds do – Hesperornis & Ichthyornis. Besides, some reptiles have teeth and some don’t.

When we find fossilized wings, we find completely developed, fully functional wings and Archaeopteryx is considered a strong flier by many evolutionists – see Wilford, John N. “Feathered Dinosaur or Real Bird.” New York Times, February 5, 1993.

“When paleontologists see Archaeopteryx, they see an earth-bound dinosaur that somehow mysteriously sprouted feathers for swatting insects or some other purpose, and they say flight originated from the ground up. However, when most ornithologists see Archaeopteryx, they see a flying bird because everything about feathers says flight to them. The conclusion we have drawn is that flight originated from trees down, which makes a lot more sense.” – Alan Feduccia (professor of biology at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), News Notes, Geotimes, p. 6, April 1993.

I still don’t see how Archaeopteryx can be quoted as being a “transitional fossil”, unless it is by those who are not current with leading evolutionary thinking, which was my original point. It will have to be another day to discuss the other "transitional fossils" that were mentioned.

Additionaly, some evolutionists now claim that Archaeopteryx wasn’t the first bird, but “pro-avis”. Interestingly enough evolutionist Dr. Ostrom is quoted as saying, “No fossil evidence of any pro-avis exists. It is a purely hypothetical pre-bird, but one which must have existed.”

And yet it’s only the creationists that must have faith?????

Oh, and one more thought...
If the evidence for “transitional fossils” is so obvious and undisputed, as it was made to seem, why are there evolutionists who developed the punctuated equilibrium theory to counter those who support phyletic gradualism?

Answer 5

I am not fumbling! In ancient Hebrew the word "yom"meant
day and also time. One word, two meanings. We have them
today. In Genesis 1:5 the word day could be the correct
word. But in Genesis 1:8 through Genesis 1:31 should say
-time-. King James gave the word yom the same meaning
all through the first chapter. You said yourself one must
sincerely and earnestly consider the evidence. To me that
means leave none out. God created the world in six times
and the seventh He rested. Is He still resting? Could be.
That is not a cop out. God did create the world and everything
in it. That word YOM is out there and has been over a
thousand years. When did man become man? When he
started talking? When he stood in aw at all that was around
him? When he understood that there was Intelligent design
to it all? Only idiots believe unfounded statements. I have
had prayers answered after medical science said it would
never happen. Science is just that. Its not God and it can't
answer prayers. All the science and, or theory in the world
can not take that away from me. Good luck. I hope this
broader view was helpful.

Answer 6

Scientists when they research, are expected to speak out. Like when I am in a meeting I am expected to speak out. If I don't speak I will not be called for the meetings in future. So I can speak some thing from the lip or hip, and can keep people guessing for the time being.

The evolution theory is one case in point. And when you are venturing into the unknown, it is all the more easy to keep people in gossipping, like we also do in our this forum.

And we all can get away, as has Charles Darvin?

Answer 7

christians fumble evolution debate

Answer 8

I believe that species are evolving everyday.. and adapting to their environments.. However I choose to believe that God spoke and there it was...If a scientist could prove to me 100% without a shadow of any doubt that evolution was the ONLY possible explanation then I would choose to believe that was how God chose to create the earth. It wouldn't sway my personal faith either way...Then again it really comes back to personal beliefs. I respect yours please respect mine. I love science, but even science isn't 100%...its 99% so that still gives me 1% to hold on to=)

I also believe that if the evoloution of man, then there would be monkeys evolving, and that man would continue to evolve...and I really do not see man evolving into anything other than what we have been for the last several thousand years..but that is my opinion.

and no offense the whole masturbating with feces comment was just so not necessary..just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are stupid. It just means we live in a great world that we can all believe what we want. If you told me you thought faries and butterflies formed the earth out of marshmellows I might think it was odd, but I would still respect it (I would giggle on the inside too)=)

P.S. I would never debate a macro biologist or anyone like that but I would love to see what they are doing..Plus I think for myself I don't believe in Creationism because I am told to I believe in it but because I want to and it coinsides with my personally beliefs doctorine (aka the Bible)..

Answer 9

I'd sure like to know where you obtained that 99% figure from if you are referring to the Origin of Man, DarwinsTheory. Sounds like a figure you just assumed, or pulled out of thin air. You also confuse adaptation to ones environment with creation. There is a huge difference.

As for Micro/Macro, to date not a single living creature has been created through the process of Darwins Theory as a species, nor has a process been able to be repeated, a requirement.

Aphroditeofnid, a scientist approaches the objective with neautrality. They don't enter with a biased mindset. Since you seem to be a scientist of certainty, how about you support your comment "evolution is a fact"? Demonstrate your proof.

Lastly, Helio, give me the names of the consortiums validating your position. The ONLY thing they will tell you is they can neither prove/nor disprove either account. That is what the evidence supports. They readily admit there are SIGNIFICANT gaps in relative, conclusive, observable data and findings to include fossil beds (yes, they are used), lacking transitional change in identified species over the course of identified time era sequence. "Why can't we find the predecessors of these particular species"? And they ain't talking about mankind either....lizards, birds, insects etc.

Since the sceintific community admits they can't figure out the why, then how can you possibly claim it as fact when even they don't? And we know you surely don't have their collective experience anymore than the rest of us here. Could it be the dogma your being fed by a professor in class? I'd like to know who he is.

Answer 10

As a Christian I do believe in evolution ( to a point). I do not think that God twitched his nose and POOF there was a tree. I think it was careful planning on his part. God is very scientific in my opinion. Who else could have designed the universe, this planet, everything in existence, giving even the smallest animal a reason and ability to contribute to life on this planet? Do not judge all Christians on those who are willing to not study, and learn all there is to know while keeping an open mind, and having an educated one. There are many college educated, open minded Christians out there. I am one for starters. So try not to judge too harshly. As a Christian I definitely try not to.

Answer 11

You need to to reed the book the icons of evolution by Jonathan Wells and find out why what you have been sold is questionable. I think most scientists are sincere to however I think many have biases and especially when the establishment has already told you it is settled and if you question it you will be punished. If you have any doubts that this happens then you need to check into it. You also fail to realize that there are scientists who already debate these issues.Obviously they take there argument serious enough to want to debate them.It is a gross exaggeration that evolution is a settled issue.