Science vs. Creationism

[carolinajazz]

How many different theories are out there about Christ between many different religious denominations.... So does that mean there was no Christ, that he wasn't the Son if God, that he wasn't a prophet or the messiah???

That Jesus was an actual person who walked this earth, respected historian Will Durant argued: “That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”

Ask yourself: Could a person who never lived have affected human history so remarkably? The reference work The Historians’ History of the World observed: “The historical result of [Jesus’] activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognized by the chief civilizations of the world, dates from his birth.”

Think about it. Even calendars today are based on the year that Jesus was thought to have been born. “Dates before that year are listed as B.C., or before Christ,” explains The World Book Encyclopedia. “Dates after that year are listed as A.D., or anno Domini (in the year of our Lord).”

Oh, and there were many thousands of eyewitnesses to the fact that Jesus walked this earth! No one...and I mean NO ONE....has ever witnessed the process of "evolution"! Why? Because it does not exist or happen! Things change or modify....but they do not "evolve!" The Jazz "change", generally from bad to worse....but they always remain basketball players! They don't "evolve" into "Robo Cop!"

 

[One Brow]

...well, butterfly's came from rhinoceroses....and man came from apes!

Butterflies don't come from rhinoceroses (one is an insect, the other a mammal), and humans don't "come from" apes (humans are apes).

 

[One Brow]

Ask yourself: Could a person who never lived have affected human history so remarkably?

Yes. Gilgamesh, Thor, Heracles, Shiva, Abraham, etc. all had major impacts.

Oh, and there were many thousands of eyewitnesses to the fact that Jesus walked this earth!

Such a shame none of them bothered to record it. Instead, you have a handful of people, writing several decades Jesus died, pretending to be eyewitnesses.

No one...and I mean NO ONE....has ever witnessed the process of "evolution"!

False. It's been witnessed in the laboratory and in the field.

Things change or modify....but they do not "evolve!"

Changing from one generation to the next is evolution.

The Jazz "change", generally from bad to worse....but they always remain basketball players! They don't "evolve" into "Robo Cop!"

Evolution does not teach this type of change.

 

[Deleted member 848]

No one...and I mean NO ONE....has ever witnessed the process of "evolution"! Why? Because it does not exist or happen! Things change or modify....but they do not "evolve!"

hahahaha

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

 

[carolinajazz]

Some people describe evolutionary theory as "Darwinism". After Darwin and the re-discovery of genetics, the Modern Synthesis (produced in the 1930s and 40s). PZ Myers today listed some of the way our current understanding is no longer reflected by the Modern Synthesis. This much change to a theory developed decades after Darwin died, yet somehow people still use "Darwiniac".

....regardless of what "modifications" evolutionist have made or would like to make over the past century, the fact remains that the definition of what constitutes "evolution" has NOT changed! In the context of this thread and our discussion of "evolution" it is necessary that we clarify what we are talking about —the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention.

Or put another way: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution.

Of interest in this regard is the following comment and observation: “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. .*.*. A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April*20, 1982, p. 19.

....and

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

 

[TroutBum]

You're using quotes from books that are over 30 years old. Many scientific papers are rendered obsolete within a year, often sooner, because of the rapid acceleration of learning and knowledge. Posting quotes and articles from a time when we were certain there were no more planets in our galaxy seems pretty worthless to me.

 

[One Brow]

....regardless of what "modifications" evolutionist have made or would like to make over the past century, the fact remains that the definition of what constitutes "evolution" has NOT changed! In the context of this thread and our discussion of "evolution" it is necessary that we clarify what we are talking about —the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter.

Actually, that's abiogenesis, and we have no theory for that, because there is not enough evidence to support any particular hypothesis.

Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things,

Evolution does not posit that one kind of thing becomes another kind of thing.

Or put another way: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter.

There would be no "first living thing".

Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things,

Things don't change when they reproduce.

Of interest in this regard is the following comment and observation: “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place

That was false even a century after Darwin's death, and it is more false today.

A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April*20, 1982, p. 19.

Once there ceases to be "open war" and "sects", that will mean people no longer have anything to study.

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

In what way does the dispute between the significance of adaptation versus evolutionary development (as an example) cast doubt on the historical fact of evolution?

 

[Zulu]

That Jesus was an actual person who walked this earth, respected historian Will Durant argued: “That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”

Ask yourself: Could a person who never lived have affected human history so remarkably? The reference work The Historians’ History of the World observed: “The historical result of [Jesus’] activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognized by the chief civilizations of the world, dates from his birth.”

Think about it. Even calendars today are based on the year that Jesus was thought to have been born. “Dates before that year are listed as B.C., or before Christ,” explains The World Book Encyclopedia. “Dates after that year are listed as A.D., or anno Domini (in the year of our Lord).”

Oh, and there were many thousands of eyewitnesses to the fact that Jesus walked this earth! No one...and I mean NO ONE....has ever witnessed the process of "evolution"! Why? Because it does not exist or happen! Things change or modify....but they do not "evolve!" The Jazz "change", generally from bad to worse....but they always remain basketball players! They don't "evolve" into "Robo Cop!"

You obviously missed what I was saying.... Never once did I say that there is no Jesus Christ... Just said the many different religious interpretation of his life, just like you talked about the different theories of the extinction of the Dinosaurs...

Just because many people don't agree specifically about something doesn't mean the Main idea of it isn't true!!

 

[LogGrad98]

You obviously missed what I was saying.... Never once did I say that there is no Jesus Christ... Just said the many different religious interpretation of his life, just like you talked about the different theories of the extinction of the Dinosaurs...

Just because many people don't agree specifically about something doesn't mean the Main idea of it isn't true!!

That is true. There is Jesus, one with God in body and spirit. There is Jesus, one with God in purpose, separate in body. And there is Jesus, who mows my lawn.

 

[moevillini]

serious question here, just trying to understand a bit better where folks stand...

Are Pearl W. and CJ in the same camp on this issue? Or are there some subtle differences in their viewpoints?

 

[Zulu]

serious question here, just trying to understand a bit better where folks stand...

Are Pearl W. and CJ in the same camp on this issue? Or are there some subtle differences in their viewpoints?

Would also like to know this!!

 

[carolinajazz]

You're using quotes from books that are over 30 years old. Many scientific papers are rendered obsolete within a year, often sooner, because of the rapid acceleration of learning and knowledge. Posting quotes and articles from a time when we were certain there were no more planets in our galaxy seems pretty worthless to me.

....I would be happy to provide more current quotes from noted scientists...but whats the point? They will say the same thing that the others have said: There is NO provable agreed-upon process by which animals evolved from one kind to another kind anywhere in the entire world of science and biology! The "updated" study of the animal kingdom further demonstrates design and a designer!

As to "when we were certain there were no more planets in our galaxy" comment...where/when did you come up with that "theory?" The fact of the matter is that the bigger and farther out astronomers have gone with there telescopes the more stars and galaxies they see!

 

[One Brow]

serious question here, just trying to understand a bit better where folks stand...

Are Pearl W. and CJ in the same camp on this issue? Or are there some subtle differences in their viewpoints?

I don't think PearlWatson has ever described her view. She prefers posting distortions of evolutionary theory without putting forward her own, it seems. As far as I know, she would be accepting of a theistic evolution view, while carolinajazz would not be.

 

[One Brow]

....I would be happy to provide more current quotes from noted scientists...but whats the point? They will say the same thing that the others have said: There is NO provable agreed-upon process by which animals evolved from one kind to another kind anywhere in the entire world of science and biology!

There are at least a coupe of dozen provable, agreed upon processes. You have confused a discussion about which is more important with a discussion of which one exists.

 

[moevillini]

Who wants to hitch their wagon to these people?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

My Favorite:

*there

oh Log, that is the beauty of it!

 

[carolinajazz]

There are at least a coupe of dozen provable, agreed upon processes. You have confused a discussion about which is more important with a discussion of which one exists.

....not so! The magazine The American Biology Teacher said: “Various well known scientists express their views ranging from educated caution, to question, and on to direct opposition to the theory.” The English magazine New Scientist stated: “It is proving particularly difficult to understand the evolution of man. We know too little of the timing or mechanisms of evolution, nor is there enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorizing out of the realms of fantasy.”

The British medical journal On Call reported: “Evolution cannot be supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology....and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible.” And Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: “The typical evolutionary explanation doesn’t make sense in view of today’s knowledge.”

Harvard-trained lawyer Norman Macbeth, after years of careful and impartial investigation found the evidence for evolution so flimsy that he declared, after reading a typical book by a leading evolutionist: “If I had to oppose that man in court I could get his case thrown out.”

“I also have no objection to explanations, if they are good explanations. Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses.

“This is not mere quibbling. The profession has worked itself into an embarrassing position when Sir Julian Huxley tells the television audience: ‘The first point to make about Darwin’s theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact,’ while at almost the same time Professor Mayr, addressing himself to serious students, says: ‘The basic theory is in many instances hardly more than a postulate.’

“Such an enormous discrepancy between two leaders is bad for the standing of the profession. The public may rightly feel that it has been paltered with.”

A dictionary defines “palter” as to “deal crookedly.” And this is exactly what more and more persons have come to feel about the explanations given for evolution.

 

[One Brow]

No one is going to be impressed by random quotes from questionable sources.

Harvard-trained lawyer Norman Macbeth, after years of careful and impartial investigation found the evidence for evolution so flimsy that he declared, after reading a typical book by a leading evolutionist: “If I had to oppose that man in court I could get his case thrown out.”

For example, in every court case actually presented since the beginning of the last century, evolution has prevailed as the scientific explanation. Any decent lawyer would know that. I don't know what that lawyer was referring to (which author, which book, which case; for all I know he was talking about Dawkins attempt to say God did not exist, as opposed to evolution), I only know that your quote doesn't mean what you claim it means, and that the deeper anyone digs into it, the more clear that will become. I've seen too many of these quotes over the years, and that is always the case, every time.

 

[MVP]

....not so! The magazine The American Biology Teacher said: “Various well known scientists express their views ranging from educated caution, to question, and on to direct opposition to the theory.” The English magazine New Scientist stated: “It is proving particularly difficult to understand the evolution of man. We know too little of the timing or mechanisms of evolution, nor is there enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorizing out of the realms of fantasy.”

The British medical journal On Call reported: “Evolution cannot be supported by evidence available to the student of basic biology....and since high ranking scientists have been known to reject it, the widespread custom of presenting it as a fact is indefensible.” And Professor John Moore, Michigan State University scientist, said: “The typical evolutionary explanation doesn’t make sense in view of today’s knowledge.”

Harvard-trained lawyer Norman Macbeth, after years of careful and impartial investigation found the evidence for evolution so flimsy that he declared, after reading a typical book by a leading evolutionist: “If I had to oppose that man in court I could get his case thrown out.”

“I also have no objection to explanations, if they are good explanations. Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses.

“This is not mere quibbling. The profession has worked itself into an embarrassing position when Sir Julian Huxley tells the television audience: ‘The first point to make about Darwin’s theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact,’ while at almost the same time Professor Mayr, addressing himself to serious students, says: ‘The basic theory is in many instances hardly more than a postulate.’

“Such an enormous discrepancy between two leaders is bad for the standing of the profession. The public may rightly feel that it has been paltered with.”

A dictionary defines “palter” as to “deal crookedly.” And this is exactly what more and more persons have come to feel about the explanations given for evolution.

Must be tough finding anything supporting your delusions among those 0.14% scientists who are not supporting evolution.
Heck ,even pope John Paul II was accepting evolution.