[ScottGem]

Please keep in mind that everything you believe about evolution comes from from pro evolutionary sources. .

Sorry that's not true. As I said, I believe in evolution because it's the only theory that fits scientific facts like fossil evidence, carbon dating etc.

Frankly, I don't give a darn how many eminent scientists or crackpots support either theory. I think for myself. I take the facts and weigh those facts to determine what I think

Not all evolutionists are atheists.

Who said they were? I believe in evolution and I'm not an atheist. As I said, I don't believe that the Theory of Evolution is in direct conflict with the Bible. I believe that Genesis was written to explain something the people of that time didn't understand, i.e. how they came into being.

[RickJ]

Comments on this post
rickj disagrees: They're both theories, period.

Then all ypu have to do is prove your claim.

I don't have a claim. I simply chose to accept one of the two Theories.

[speedball1]

I don't have a claim. I simply chose to accept one of the two Theories.

Ok, I accept that. I'm not hard to get along with. Then all you have to do is show me some proof to back up your "acceptance". What's that? No proof?
Then I guess you're out of gas.

[RickJ]

If there was proof for either side, then it would not be a Theory. Even the scientists and theorists agree - which, again, is why Evolution is a Theory.

Personally, I accept that living things evolve. The evidence for this is overwhelming. But there is nothing near proof that we all evolved from a common ancestor.

[speedball1]

Our Primate Origins: An Introduction Like all other organisms, humans have evolved over time from earlier species, and share a genetic relationship to all other forms of life on Earth. The study of human evolution involves understanding the similarities and differences between humans and other species in their genes, body form, physiology, and behavior.

To understand human evolution one must understand where humans fit in relation to other forms of life. Modern humans belong to the group of mammals known as Primates. This is the scientific category describing such diverse creatures as lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, the monkeys of the New World and Old World, and also the apes. As primates we all share many characteristics, such as overlapping fields of vision caused by forward looking eyes (this allows for greater 3D vision), fine ability to grasp and handle objects in our hands, and enlarged brains relative to body size. The evolution of the Primates started in the early part of the Eocene epoch (about 55 million years ago).


Olive Baboon: Papio anubis
Old World Monkey "Common" Chimpanzee: Pan troglodytes
African Ape
Photographs courtesy of Don Wilson, Smithsonian Institution, Department of Vertebrate Zoology

By comparing humans and other living species, scientists have learned that humans are most similar to the large apes of Africa and Asia. Among all animals, humans and apes are the most alike in brain and body form, by having a complex social life, and in many other major and minor features, including the lack of a tail. The fossil record of several ancient ape species collectively called Proconsul shows that the split between the common ancestors of the Old world monkeys (above left) and the apes (above right) happened in the earliest Miocene, at least 20 million years ago.

Comparisons of DNA show that our closest living relatives are the ape species of Africa, and most studies by geneticists show that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas. However, it must be stressed that humans did not evolve from living chimpanzees. Rather, our species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor that was distinct from other African apes. This common ancestor is thought to have existed in the Pliocene between 5 and 8 million years ago, based on the estimated rates of genetic change. Both of our species have since undergone 5 to 8 million years of evolution after this split of the two lineages. Using the fossil record, scientists attempt to reconstruct the evolution from this common ancestor through the series of early human species to today's modern human species.

So when did humans originate? The answer to that question really depends on what traits are meant by the term "human."

Our understanding of the fossil record shows that distinctively human traits appeared neither recently nor all at once. Rather, they evolved piecemeal over a period of roughly 5 million years. By 4 million years ago, humans were habitually bipedal (walking on two legs) yet had brains roughly a third of the size of a modern human's (about the size of a modern ape's brain). By 2.5 million years ago the manufacture of stone tools was common. Large increases in brain size occurred even later. Complex behaviors such as adaptation to a wide range of environments and cultural diversification emerged only within the last 100,000 years.

Rick,

DNA, the fossil record and a progression of human skulls all are concrete evidence the we evolved.
Now! I have just put forth some of the evidence that substantiates my claim.
Short of attacking evolution or what I've posted have you any evidence that will further your creation theory and do you deny that Creation, Intelligent Design, Scientific Creation, ( take your pick) is nothing more then a religious belief that the religious right is attempting to insert into the public school system by way of science classes? When you can come up with some POSITIVE PROOF that your theory's valid I'll agree they should be taught side by side. Until then you have nothing to offer then faith and belief. BTW. Please explain exactly who the "intelligent designer" is?

[Starman]

Sorry that's not true. As I said, I believe in evolution because its the only theory that fits scientific facts like fossil evidence, carbon dating etc.

Frankly, I don't give a darn how many eminent scientists or crackpots support either theory. I think for myself. I take the facts and weigh those facts to determine what I think



Who said they were? I believe in evolution and I'm not an atheist. As I said, I don't believe that the Theory of Evolution is in direct conflict with the Bible. I believe that Genesis was written to explain something the people of that time didn't understand, i.e. how they came into being.

The Genesis account is repeatedly quoted as historical fact by the prophets, the apostles and even by Jesus himself. So saying that it wasn't is calling all these either imbeciles or liars. You can't have it both ways. Calling it myth makes a mockery of what Jesus died for, our sins which are traced back to Eden and what occurred there, and stamps him as a deluded lunatic who died for nothing but his own delusions. From my standpoint I don't see any reason why I should doubt Jesus, the Son of God, and prefer to believe a mere sinful evolutionist.

Scientific facts? They are facts only from an evolutionary viewpoint. You depend on evolutionists to interpret the data they discover for you and their interpretation is always pro evolution. The same evidence can be interpreted from the intelligent design viewpoint. But then you would say that there is bias.


BTW
The use of such words as crackpots, wackoes, loonies, and so on when referring to scientists who choose to support creation is considered fallacious reasoning since it falls under the category of ad hominem. Of course you you included any scientist but within the context of your argument those reading your words will assume you mean creationist scientists.

[RickJ]

The Genesis account is repeatedly quoted as historical fact by the prophets, the apostles and even by Jesus himself.

Can you cite some examples? While Christ and his Apostles did cite Scripture (what we now call the Old Testament), they were not commenting on what is literal and what is not.

[RickJ]

BTW
The use of such words as crackpots, wackoes, loonies, and so on when referring to scientists who choose to support creation is considered fallacious reasoning since it falls under the category of ad hominem. Of course you you included any scientist but within the context of your argument those reading your words will assume you mean creationist scientists.

Yeah, it's one thing to call someone who believes the north pole is a hole that leads to a world of people inside the earth a crackpot, as there is solid proof that it does not exist... but calling people who believe in creation, including educated and reputable Scientists, crackpots is silly.

[ScottGem]

The Genesis account is repeatedly quoted as historical fact by the prophets, the apostles and even by Jesus himself. So saying that it wasn't is calling all these either imbeciles or liars. You can't have it both ways. Calling it myth makes a mockery of what Jesus died for, our sins which are traced back to Eden and what occurred there, and stamps him as a deluded lunatic who died for nothing but his own delusions. From my standpoint I don't see any reason why I should doubt Jesus, the Son of God, and prefer to believe a mere sinful evolutionist.

Scientific facts? They are facts only from an evolutionary viewpoint. You depend on evolutionists to interpret the data they discover for you and their interpretation is always pro evolution. The same evidence can be interpreted from the intelligent design viewpoint. But then you would say that there is bias.


BTW
The use of such words as crackpots, wackoes, loonies, and so on when referring to scientists who choose to support creation is considered fallacious reasoning since it falls under the category of ad hominem. Of course you you included any scientist but within the context of your argument those reading your words will assume you mean creationist scientists.

First, I wasn't referring to scientists in my crackpots remark. I specifically said "eminent scientists OR crackpots". My intent was not to lump the two together. I also specifically stated support for "either theory". Again not specifying either side.

I dealt with this first, because it shows that despite what I actually said, you applied a different interpretation to my words. An interpretation clearly not supported by what I actually said. This leaves one to ponder on what else you might have interpretted incorrectly to support your position.

If calling Genesis a myth implies what you said it implies, then so be it. If you can produce one iota of concrete proof that the Old Testament represents an accurate historical account of the origin of this planet and the life on it, then I will change my position.

As for the scientific facts only being facts from an evolutionary viewpoint, you are incorrect there. Again, I'm not going to go into all the evidence that exists supporting the Theory of Evolution. But a good deal of that evidence is simple bare facts. Facts that Evolution accounts for where Creationism doesn't.

[ScottGem]

Yeah, it's one thing to call someone who believes the north pole is a hole that leads to a world of people inside the earth a crackpot, as there is solid proof that it does not exist...but calling people who believe in creation, including educated and reputable Scientists, crackpots is silly.

See my Answer to Starman. Try reading what I ACTUALLY said, instead of what you think I said.

[Starman]

Can you cite some examples? While Christ and his Apostles did cite Scripture (what we now call the Old Testament), they were not commenting on what is literal and what is not.

I see absolutely no evidence in the Bible indicating that the Genesis account is myth. I can quote dozens of scriptures where prophets apostles and even Jesus spoke of it clearly as history. But that would not change your viewpoint since you have chosen to consider it myth and would then proceed to give your reasons you prefer to see it as myth. Round and round it would go ad infinitum. So I prefer not to do an exercise in futility and acknowledge your right to your opinion.

[Curlyben]

I see absolutely no evidence in the Bible indicating that the Genesis account is myth

LACK of evidence doesn't prove FACT or MYTH for that matter.

The Bible is a collection of stories that have neither been proven as FACT or MYTH. So your belief is based purely on FAITH.

[Starman]

First, I wasn't referring to scientists in my crackpots remark. I specifically said "eminent scientists OR crackpots". My intent was not to lump the two together. I also specifically stated support for "either theory". Again not specifying either side.

I dealt with this first, because it shows that despite what I actually said, you applied a different interpretation to my words. An interpretation clearly not supported by what I actually said. This leaves one to ponder on what else you might have interpretted incorrectly to support your position.

If calling Genesis a myth implies what you said it implies, then so be it. If you can produce one iota of concrete proof that the Old Testament represents an accurate historical account of the origin of this planet and the life on it, then I will change my position.

As for the scientifc facts only being facts from an evolutionary viewpoint, you are incorrect there. Again, I'm not going to go into all the evidence that exists supporting the Theory of Evolution. But a good deal of that evidence is simple bare facts. Facts that Evolution accounts for where Creationism doesn't.

Simple bare facts as interpreted by evolutionist scientists to dovetail with their assumpions. In any case, I am sure that if you found a simple arrowhead in the desert and I told you it was a product of chance you would immediately protest by saying that it shows clear evidence of planning and forethought which indicates intelligent design. But faced with the infinitely more complex human brain you immediately switch criteria ans say you see nothing indicvating forethought and planning? Sorry but that type of biased reasoning or selective blindness weakens your case, for evolutionary or mindless chance emergence of things since it shows a serious flaw in reasining and inconsistency of criterion.

BTW
The scientific method is not the only way to prove things. There is also logic.

[Starman]

LACK of evidence doesn't prove FACT or MYTH for that matter.

You are right, lack of evidence doesn't prove anything about the Bible but it does deprive the accusers of a very useful tool--evidence.

The Bible is a collection of stories that have neither been proven as FACT or MYTH. So your belief is based purely on FAITH.

The burden of proof lies primarily with the accuser not with the accused.
All I see here are statements without any scientific or logical support which are expected to be taken as fact simply because they are stated.

Fallacious reasoning:

Popularity of a belief isn't proof of accuracy. That premise is faulty and the use of it to buttress a fallacious argument called "Appeal to bandwagon" This is not to say that it is being used directly as proof of evolution or mindless emergence of the universe and all life within it, but in a roundabout way it is. Not necessarily by anyone here, but by the general public who believes what evolutionist scientist say.

BTW
Having computer problems and can't cite scripture or provide links inn support of my statements. Will have to log out and come back later after I tweak thi infernal machine.

[RickJ]

LACK of evidence doesn't prove FACT or MYTH for that matter.

Correct.

The Bible is a collection of stories that have neither been proven as FACT or MYTH. So your belief is based purely on FAITH.

Incorrect. I can't cite a percentage, but many of the events described in the Bible are confirmed by extra-biblical historical, textual, archaeological, etc sources.

[ScottGem]

Popularity of a belief isn't proof of accuracy. That premise is faulty and the use of it to buttress an argument is called "Appeal to bandwagon" It is simply fallacious reasoning.

Exactly, popularity of belief is NOT proof of accuracy. And popularity of belief accounts far more for support of creationism then it does for evolution.

You keep trying to support your position by referring to evolutionist viewpoint in interpreting facts. However, much of the Bible is subject to interpetation.

I will say again, that the Theory of Evolution is popular because it's the only explanation that fits scientific fact.

[Starman]

Exactly, popularity of belief is NOT proof of accuracy. And popularity of belief accounts far more for support of creationism then it does for evolution.

You keep trying to support your position by referring to evolutionist viewpoint in interpreting facts. However, much of the Bible is subject to interpetation.

I will say again, that the Theory of Evolution is popular because its the only explanation that fits scientific fact.

.Very good that you acknowledge that popularity is meaningless in terms of truth or objective reality. However, I disagree that most evolutionists know what they are placing their trust in. Most are brainwashed in school at an early age and their impressionable minds are awed by authority figures until anything these authority figures say is considered sacrosanct. Ask any high school student to give you an intelligent explanation of the fine point of the evolution theory and you will get a blank stare or some superficial response. So their belief is for all practical purposes blind faith based on the conclusions reached by others which they have chosen to consider indisputable because that's the way they were taught to think--if indeed it can be considered thinking art all.

You say that most of the Bible is subject to interpretation. It seems that way doesn't it. But what you are seeing is misinterpretation. So I would rephrase that statement as the Bible is subject to an infinite amount of misinterpretation. As a matter of fact, the Bible itself tells us that it would be misinterpreted and that the misinterpretations were fostered by God's arch enemy Satan. It also tells us that God doesn't grant just anyone to understand it correctly but that some are kept from that understanding by the condition of their hearts.

One example: people who read it in order to find faults, in order to attack it further. These might come away more mislead then they originally were since their minds are closed to anything but what they had already concluded.

BTW
How do you explain your inconsistency in criteria in reference to the arrowhead example?

[ScottGem]

However, I disagree that most evolutionists know what they are placing their trust in. Most are brainwashed in school at an early age and their impressionable minds are awed by authority figures until anything these authority figures say is considered sacrosanct.

BTW
How do you explain your inconsistency in criteria in reference to the arrowhead example?

The same can be said, with more basis, about religion. Religion is based on faith. Faith is drummed into people during their more impressionable years.

What I see the fact here is that you see the Theory of Evolution as attacking your beliefs in the Bible and religion. Therefore, to reinforce your belief, you have to attack Evolution. I prefer to look at the body of scientific evidence. When I do I see how that evidence fits the points of Evolution and I choose to accept Darwin's ideas as the most likely.

I don't now and never have put my faith in religion. I've indicated why in other posts I've placed on this site. If you want to put your faith in it, your are welcome to. But when you try to deny the scientific evidence. When you try to denigrate in the name of supporting your faith, I will dispute you.

BTW
What inconsistency?

[talaniman]

I have seen no scientific facts that refute anything the bible says so I tend to believe that God had many ways to bring life to this planet and our intellect still is trying to grasp the concept, so ancient man probably had no clue and had to fill in the blanks the best they could. Whether we believe whatever theory or not the bottom line is that no matter how it sounds or seems to fit none of us can explain the mystery of how GOD does things or makes them happen. Even our supercomputers can only theorise the creation and it maybe a long time before man can even wrap his head around the fact that God created everything his own way

[ScottGem]

This goes along with some other things I have said.