Except it would provide a justification for incredulity; “all that adaptation and evolution in only six thousand years of geological column?! - that would mean that evolution were happening at such a rate that we would easily be able to observe it all around us!”
I agree, I think the thinking is that if you disprove one portion-no matter how inconsequential to the whole-the anti-evolution crowd can hold it up and say “see, how can you be sure about evolution, science is constantly wrong, it’s wrong about evolution, just as it was wrong about this”.
Well why is it not wrong? That is what evolutionists do with creation. It is exceptable for evolution to explain away its shortcomings and lack of evidence by talking about “dead ends” and evidence that has yet to be discovered but must exist since evolution is true and nothing is ever questioned. One the other hand, Creationist are required to prove every detail of their theory. If we claim that the Bible is silent on a matter or a supernatural event occured then our theory is said to be debunked due to lack of evidence. This makes no sense.
I must admit i am starting to believe in a small portion of the evolutionary theory, … the amoeba! Not only is it toward the genesis of the theory but the theory even displays its characteristics, taking what ever form is necessary to survive!! (this was said in the spirit of good humor even though it is true).
Please give examples of “shortcomings and lack of evidence.” Please give an example where scientists have talked about " dead ends and evidence which is yet to be discovered, but must exist."
In Great Debates, you are expected to provide support for factual assertions. If you are going to assert that evolution has “shortcomings,” please provide some examples. It is hard to rebut generic accusations.
Creationists claim to have evidence to support special creation, yet have in every case failed to provide anything resembling compelling evidence. That is why their “theories” are systematically rejected. Ultimately, however, it is the rare creationist who does have anything resembling a theory; instead, their “theory” relies on attacks against evolution - attacks which ultimately fail because of a misunderstanding about how evolution works and what scientists do or do not know. Any blanket attack, such as “evolution cannot work because of <insert reason here>” is going to fail because evolution is not built upon any single fact. It is supported by a vast number of facts, from numerous fields. Even if that one fact is shown to be false, it still does not undermine the entirety.
Creationism depends on a metaphysic: God must exist. Creationists are completely unwilling to entertain even the slightest notion that He might not. Evolution, on the other hand, can operate regardless of whether God exists or not. He exists? Great. Evolution can still work. He doesn’t exist? Great. 'Cause the theories don’t rely on His existence in the first place.
Creationists fail because their arguments rely on that which cannot be proven. You have your Bible which says God created everything. Fine, but we have the sum total of human knowledge and observations of the natural world which can be independently verified to support our position. You can follow in Darwin’s footsteps and take up pigeon husbandry and see for yourself the effects of variation and selection. You can talk with farmers regarding such topics as selective fertilization and the appearance of various resistant strains (both good and bad), be they disease-resistant crops or pesticide-resistant bugs. You can see similarities between organisms and disparities between others. Evoltiuionary scientists have explanations for all these, and more.
What do creationists offer? “Uh…God did it.”
In some cases, the observed rate of change has been too high to coincide with Darwin’s “slow and steady” pace. I would have to look up sites (I do recall Gould mentioning such in at least one of his This View of Life essays) to provide specifics, though.
Let’s be quite clear on one thing – persons who support evolution need not take any stance on whether God created – merely on the question of whether He created in one of the various theories advanced in an effort to fit the Genesis stories into the researches about the natural world: six-day literalism, “god of the gaps,” “one day is like a thousand years,” and all the other variations.
Look, your experiences with evolutionists may have been bad; that doesn’t mean that scientists treat creation the same way that people on a messageboard do. Creation science is simply not science. If you want to post arguments to the contrary, be my guest.
Give me examples of what you are talking about. Keep in mind that there might be a few small details in evolution that scientists are arguing about, but the theory is beyond question at this point (IMO).
How about any detail?
Give me an example of what you mean.
What are you talking about?
You have truly never read any actual scientific papers on evolution. Everything gets challenged, disputed, and attacked. The stuff that you see in textbooks, presented as facts, are the things that have withstood so many attacks, that everyone pretty much agrees that those explanations provide the best fit with the evidence, since they have won out over all the challenges against them.
In contrast, with Creationism, there is no place left to go once someone declares “God did it.” Most recently, this has been what has been going on with Michael Behe’s irreduceable complexity. In his book Darwin’s Black Box, Behe identified three types of structures/events in nature that he claimed were irreduceably complex, meaning that each of the parts fit so specifically into the whole, the the thing could not function if any of the parts were different. If the parts could not have arisen from previous parts, that made the system irreduceably complex.
To provide examples of such irreduceably complex “designs,” he highlighted immune systems, blood-cotting mechanisms, and bacterial flagella. His points were that any changes to the immune sysem as we find it, today, would have been worthless, failing to provide immunity, and allowing no evolutionary prior step. He made the same claim regarding blood clotting, that any change in the chemicals used would have caused the system to fail, so there could be no prior system that “looked like” blood-clotting from which clotting could develop. Any different system would either fail to clot altogether or cause all the blood in the body to clot at once–either result being fatal, and, thus, unable to evolve . His third claim was that bacterial flagella need the specific enzymes acting in a specific order in order to develop the little whirligig tails that make up each flagellum, and that if any of those enzymes had ever been absent, the flagellum could never have arisen.
He has been demonstrated to be wrong on several levels regarding the immune system and blood clotting systems. While we have no definitive proof (yet) of the origin of bacterial flagella, there are a number of ways in which they could have developed (against Behe’s claim that they could not evolve), and we have a couple of hypthoses described here.
Now, if we simply accepted Behe’s claim for irreduceable complexity, we would have merely looked at the immune system, said “God did it.” and walked away without ever trying to find out how it really works. By continuing to explore the functions of the biochemical actions, we have a better understanding of how it works (which will give us a better understanding of how to improve disease-fighting methods–something that the “God did it” program will not allow us to do).
Your claim that science “explains” gaps in knowledge with claims of “dead ends” is in error. Enough of the framework of evolutionary knowledge has been sketched out that current gaps are generally filled in with speculation based on similar processes in other areas. However, unlike the Creationist statement “God did it,” scientists continue to probe and speculate on those gaps. They continue to propose (competing) hypotheses and then go to look for evidence to disprove those hypotheses (hoping to find more support than disproof, of course, but seeking the disproof all the same).
I think we should give Wrenchead some credit for this very good insight into how science works. This is exactly what makes science so powerful - any time evidence comes along to challenge an old theory, the theory can adapt and change form as necessary.
On the other hand, once you introduce dogma, you have to twist the new evidence to fit the old theory/belief. To use your analogy, WRENCHEAD, this is as if the amoeba’s only way of surviving is to create massive change in the world that it exists in. You can make up your mind as to whether this is a good coping strategy.
I can see how someone coming from a biblical-literalist position would see this adaptation, which is fundamental to science, as a weakness, and perhaps this is one of the keys to why this debate always seems to include two sides arguing over each others heads.
WRENCHEAD, if you are interested, I would appreciate your first-hand viewpoint of why Creationists hate Evolution.
vanilla:
I’d like to thank Polycarp among some others, for causing me to question the literalness of some of the Bible.
The main thing, the very main thing, was that Jesus came to earth and was a substitute for our sins, and a reconciliation between mankidn and God.
The rest is sortof filler.
What makes you so sure that part is to be take literal?
If it’s not, how would the message change?
Meatros:
If it’s not, how would the message change?
How about all the Jesus stuff is also just myth. That’s why when you ask for anything in his name you don’t get it. It’s why believers can’t really do the works that Jesus could and more. It’s why Jesus didn’t return before all those standing before him tasted death, and why regardless of what Jesus said in Mark 16, if you drink any deadly thing you will come to harm.
There is no heaven, repentance is futile but at least you can live your life as you want without the fear Jesus casting you and most of your friends into a furnace everlasting fire and punishment.
How’d that be?
“Imagine there’s no Heaven; it’s easy if you try – no Hell below us, above us, only sky. Imagine all good people living life in peace…” 
Yep. In case it hasn’t come across to you, I’m not afraid of the Big Bad Meanie in the Sky. I think that God does exist in a form that manifests Itself as a Person who loves me and whom I love in return. And I don’t hold with a literal reading of all those miracle stories, any more than I believe in the Bleeding Taco With Jesus’s Face On It.
And if someone came along and convinced me that Jesus died dead and lies buried in an unmarked tomb outside Jerusalem, I’d still live by the rules He gave – because I’ve been on both sides of the fence, and I’m much happier knowing and loving other people, and trying to be as much help to them as I can, just as He commanded.
The Jesus stories are not myth – they’re something quite different: hagiographical, polemic biography – stories about the life of a man told to illustrate a theological point (or, in this case, numerous points). Matthew was so hot on the idea of the prophesied Messiah that he would have told a story about Jesus strangling a weasel if somewhere in the Tanakh he had found a note about a king strangling a weasel that he could lift as prophecy of the Messiah, whether it fit or not. Mark saw Him as the Son of God, the King going Incognito – one of his main themes is the Messianic Secret, where Jesus is perpetually telling people during His ministry not to let on that He’s the Messiah. Luke saw Him as against codified, legalistic and ritualistic religion and on the side of the poor and oppressed. John got into Philo’s Logos philosophy and saw Him as the Word of God in human flesh, whose teachings were laden with metaphors and words carrying extra freight. All four pictured Him as a wonder-worker; that was standard for religious leaders back then. (Mohammed, be it noted, supposedly flew to Heaven from the site of the Temple in Jerusalem; Elijah and Elisha could wave a cloak and part the Jordan, just as Joshua had done before them, and as Moses did to the Red Sea. The story of Jesus walking on the water was one-upsmanship on this; He doesn’t need to part the waters, just walk across!
I be a bit disappointed if Jesus didn’t exist, but I’d still try to live the same. I think how Jesus reportedly lived his life is very admirable and that’s one of the key distinctions for me. Also, I don’t agree with you about the reason for not getting things and why we can’t do his works. I don’t see a reason for either of those. If we had a genie at our disposal who would grant us our every whim, what good would faith be?
I do live my life the way I want to. I think you have it in your head that all Christians live a very restricted life. I can’t speak for any except me, but I do what I want-I just don’t try to interfer in a negative way with other people. It may sound like the old Pascal Wager, but if I didn’t believe in heaven I’d want to live the same way. I value the truths set down in the bible. The golden rule, honesty, and integrety (sp?). I can’t see how that would change if God, Jesus, and heaven didn’t exist.
Excellent! Let me quote my sig from another board that I used to post on:
MH
Cool.
The way I feel about it; what’s the point if you’re only acting out of fear? To truly believe that my fellow man/woman is equal to me and deserves the same treatment as I expect is, IMO, vastly better than to treat them better because you’re scared of the consequences.
Christianity != Magic(k)! Our understanding of prayer is not “asking the Santa figure in the sky for what we want” and expecting Him to produce – it’s conforming our wills to His, and bringing before Him in humble petition the desires of our hearts, that He may give us what we need and remove covetousness for what we want in our finiteness but which would ultimately not redound to our good. “In Jesus’s name” is not a magic formula that “makes your prayers come true” but the effort of making a petition as He would if He were praying in one’s place. And foremost in our minds should be His prayer in Gethsemane – “If it be Thy will, take this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will but Thine be done.” Rather obviously, and we believe to our benefit, the Father did not see fit to “take this cup” from Him. If it ultimately becomes His will that I must emulate my namesake and die for Him in my old age, so be it – but until then I’ll be trying to use my life for His sake.
Polycarp:
Yep. In case it hasn’t come across to you, I’m not afraid of the Big Bad Meanie in the Sky.
Heck no that would be silly wouldn’t it. But of course the big fairy godmother in the sky, that’s perfectly logical (insert sarcasm here).
And I don’t hold with a literal reading of all those miracle stories, any more than I believe in the Bleeding Taco With Jesus’s Face On It.
Do you hold in the literal reading of any of those miracle stories?
If so which ones? How do you distinguish? Why do you doubt?
And if someone came along and convinced me that Jesus died dead and lies buried in an unmarked tomb outside Jerusalem, I’d still live by the rules He gave – because I’ve been on both sides of the fence, and I’m much happier knowing and loving other people, and trying to be as much help to them as I can, just as He commanded.
Do you live by all his rules? What about the unfriendly ones:
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” Matthew 10: 34-36
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple.” Luke 14: 26
“If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” John 15: 6
You like to follow the nice one’s like below, is that correct?
“Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.” (Luke 6:30)
In fact why don’t you demonstrate how you follow Jesus by sending me a check. How much you got?
Or are these not to be taken literally? If not why do you take the “do unto others” literally?
The Jesus stories are not myth – they’re something quite different: hagiographical, polemic biography – stories about the life of a man told to illustrate a theological point (or, in this case, numerous points).
Is a “hagiographical, polemic biography” another term for a pack of lies?
Matthew was so hot on the idea of the prophesied Messiah that he would have told a story about Jesus strangling a weasel if somewhere in the Tanakh he had found a note about a king strangling a weasel that he could lift as prophecy of the Messiah, whether it fit or not.
Ok, we are in agreement. Lies it is.
All four pictured Him as a wonder-worker; that was standard for religious leaders back then. (Mohammed, be it noted, supposedly flew to Heaven from the site of the Temple in Jerusalem; Elijah and Elisha could wave a cloak and part the Jordan, just as Joshua had done before them, and as Moses did to the Red Sea. The story of Jesus walking on the water was one-upsmanship on this; He doesn’t need to part the waters, just walk across!
Whoa, back off Poly, my end of the argument was doing fine, you didn’t have to switch sides and start helping me out. Another question for you. Since the accounts of Jesus are by your own words so unreliable and why don’t you just worship some modern day humanitarian, like Bertrand Russell? For all you know this Jesus character could have been an asshole.