[DUKE-OF-URL]

If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes on this earth? Why didn't they evolve?

Here is a website that can answer some questions for a person that doesn't come with a presupasiton and an agenda. Answersingenesis.org

[ebaines]

Duke-of-URL:

I'm sure you realize that the site you referenced is not interested in science - it's stated purpose is "believing, defending, and proclaiming" a literal interpretation of Genesis. It starts with the belief that the "Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God," as this site states, and hence clearly it is not interested in considering alternate natural explanations. Many of the arguments it makes are based on religious or philosophical arguments involving "the character of God," "the bible's teaching," and "the doctrine of redemption." (See for example: What are the most compelling scientific evidences of a young earth?)

These are not scientific arguments. No scientist would ever put forth a theory and defend it through faith. This is a science forum, and so we should be limiting our discussion to science topics. Discussions that are based on faith belong in one of the religion forums, not here.

[Capuchin]

Why isnt it a fact then?

This is just an issue with wording.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Organisms changing from one generation to another and being selected for those changes is evolution and is fact. The theory of evolution is a theory which describes this and other facts. We use evolution in 2 different ways here, one of the ways is a fact, the other way is a theory.

Gravity causes 2 bodies to be attracted to one another, this is fact. The theory that explains this and other facts is the theory of gravity. Gravity is both theory and fact.

[Capuchin]

here is a website that can answer some questions for a person that doesn't come with a presupasiton and an agenda. answersingenesis.org

The domain name is as far as I needed to go to know that this source is biased.

[firmbeliever]

Here's what my search for evolution came up with this time...

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5494
------------------------------------------------------

Evolution - Philosophy, Not Science

Gregory Koukl
Greg shows that Darwin's General Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with science.


I'm mystified by the opening sentence of an article in Friday's Union Tribune (October 25, 1996). It says, "In his most comprehensive statement yet on evolution, Pope John Paul II insisted that faith and science can co-exist."

So far, so good. I agree with the Pope wholeheartedly on this first point. If you heard my opening address at our conference on Science and Faith, you'd know why I think they can co-exist if they are properly defined. (How science and faith are defined is an important part of answering the question.)


The real question is whether the evidence supports evolution or not, not whether we can baptize evolution with the word "God" so Christians feel comfortable.


I part ways with the Pope in his next statement. He said that "Charles Darwin's theories are sound as long as they take into account that creation was the work of God."

That's an odd thing to say, it seems to me. I mean no disrespect here at all to Pope John Paul II. But doesn't that strike you as odd? It seems to me that Charles Darwin's theories--scientific theories, theories about the origins and development of things--are either sound or not sound. If they're not sound, you can't baptize them by bringing God into the picture and miraculously make them sound. And if they are sound in themselves, then you don't need to add God to make them work, do you? It's already doing fine on its own. Which is the point of evolution: mother nature without father God.

I don't think evolution works at all. I don't think Charles Darwin's theories are sound, so I'm not in the least bit tempted to baptize them with some form of theistic evolution.

By definition, evolution offered an explanation for how things got to be the way they are without God (I'm referring to what's known as the "general theory of evolution"). This is why it made such a splash. Do you think that if God could be worked into the evolutionary picture, then evolution would have taken off the way it did? Of course not.

Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker and one of the world's preeminent evolutionists, was right when he said that Darwin made the world safe for atheism. But if Darwinism can be easily baptized with theism, how can it be that Darwin made the world safe for atheism? It's precisely because evolution seemed to explain things that used to require the existence of God to explain them that Darwinism became so popular and accepted within ten to fifteen years after Origin of Species was published in 1859. It's precisely because God is out of the picture that evolution is so appealing.

When you listen to evolutionists like Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould, he's very willing to admit you can believe in God and also be an evolutionist. No problem. But that doesn't mean Gould approves of theistic evolution. Gould means that plenty of his friends believe in God, but their belief in God is a religious thing they do in their closets, inside their homes and behind the closed doors of the churches. They don't mix religion and science, God and evolution, fantasy with fact.

Gould's attitude is typical of other evolutionary scientists. Believe in God if you want. Practice your religious alchemy in the privacy of your own home if you must. Just don't pretend that it has anything to do with the real world. When it comes to the real world, that God was not involved in the process. Life evolved through non-directed, materialistic processes. Stephen J. Gould and everyone else who writes on this issue makes that very clear.

When people try to fit God into the process of evolution, that's when evolutionists like Gould stand up and say, "Wait a minute, you don't understand evolution if that's what you think actually took place. Evolution is by chance, not design, and you can't have design by chance."

Theistic evolution means design by chance. That's like square circles, ladies and gentlemen. There is no such thing.


The passage of time and the increase of knowledge haven't helped evolution; they've hurt it.


The real question is whether the evidence supports evolution or not, not whether we can baptize evolution with the word "God" so Christians feel comfortable.

To put it simply, lest there be any confusion about the matter, evolution must be dealt with scientifically, on its own merits. Is it an adequate explanation of the origin of things?

I think it's wholly inadequate. Contrary to the Pope's views, the more knowledge we get, the more problems we see with the origin of life by evolutionary means--the more problems we see with the change from one kind of life into another by evolutionary means.

The passage of time and the increase of knowledge haven't helped evolution; they've hurt it. Evolution was popular early on precisely because there was so little information about the process. Now we know much more about the details of biochemistry and genetics, and information theory, and the incredible complexity of even the simplest living thing. It's become evident that evolution is just not capable of explaining life.

You want proof for that? Here, it's very simple. This is my handy-dandy evolution refuter. It's the simplest way I know to right to the heart of the problem, proving that evolution is not based on fact, but on philosophy.

For evolution to be a fact, you must have two things, minimally. First, you've got to have life coming from non-life--abiogenesis. Second, you've got to have a change in that life from simple forms to complex forms over time. You must have the kick-off, and you must have the rest of the game.

Now, here's my question: How did life come from non-life? How did the game get started by evolutionary means. Does anyone know? Guess what? Nobody knows. Oh, there are some ideas and people have suggested some possible ways, but nobody has sketched out any way that really answers the question. There are so many problems and complications. There are competing models that have been suggested, but they're just starting places. They're just ways of saying, "Let's start here, and we'll see where it leads." There are possibilities, but no one knows how it happened, or even how it could have happened in enough detail to be compelling."

Now, here's the kicker. If you don't know how it happened by naturalistic, evolutionary processes, how do you know that it happened by naturalistic, evolutionary processes? Evolution is claimed to be a fact, but you can't have the fact of evolution unless you have the fact of abiogenesis. Yet nobody knows how such a thing could ever take place. And if life can't be shown to have come from non-life, then the game can't even get started.

Then why do we call evolution a fact when evolution can't even get off the ground, based on the information we have right now. The answer you get is always the same: Because we're here. It must have happened . That's called circular reasoning, friends, based on a prior commitment to naturalism that won't be shaken by the facts.

Which proves that this is not about science, it's about philosophy.



This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1996 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St. Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org
--------------------------------------------

I am just trying to shed light on the subject!:) :)

------------------------------------

[Capuchin]

AHhahahahhahaah

Thank you for the laugh firm believer. He raises only 3 points in this whole long winded article, and fills the rest of it with babble.

1: he doesnt agree with the pope when the pope says "Charles Darwin's theories are sound as long as they take into account that creation was the work of God."
I agree with him here. Darwinism and Creationism cannot live hand in hand.

2: he doesn't agree that you can believe in god and adhere to a belief in evolution.
I disagree with him here. If you don't believe that the Old Testament is to be taken literally (ie, that creationism as told in the Bible is not literal), then there is absolutely no problem in believing in God and evolution. He doesn't even consider this view in this article.

3: He doesn't believe that evolution describes abiogenesis.
The fact of the matter here is that evolution doesn't claim to explain how life first came about. It claims to describe how life got from the first reproducing organism to life how we know it today. It does this very well.
He mentions this as the second thing that evolution must do. But it's really the only thing that it claims to do, and he makes no attempt to show that it doesn't do it.

So, to summarise:
One good point that the pope said something that is misguided.
One incorrect point that failed to analyse all the possible points of view.
And one completely misguided point about what the Theory of Evolution is.

[sovaira]

The religious and the scientific perspective clash and are controversial
I think we should take evolution as a scientific study ,rather than religious.

[asking]

the religious and the scientific perspective clash and are controversial
i think we should take evolution as a scientific study ,rather than religious.

A friend sent this to me and I thought it was semi relevant here. The page, Are You a Quack? is by a physicist, but it's about what is science and what isn't and, more or less, how people without training in science can't just decide to play without learning the rules.

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

Cheers,
Asking

[Capuchin]

Asking, that is similar to the "crackpot index". A way of assigning points to a piece of work, and if it comes out with a positive total, you have yourself a crackpot! I'm sure you'll enjoy this read :)

Crackpot index

[asking]

Capuchin,
I am in a state of bliss, sitting here drinking my coffee in my pjs and reading the crackpot index. This is the first time I've felt sorry for physicists; I had no idea how bad it was.
Thanks!
Asking