Theory of Evolution

[zone]

You need to listen to Eugenie Scott's explanation again. You seem to have missed the whole point, or you are simply disregarding the explanation.

Phillip Johnson, a Jefferson E. Peyser professor of law, emeritus at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law and author of "Darwin on Trial," said Darwinism is all about religion.

"Its (evolution's) impact is cultural," he said. "It's impact is it puts God out of reality. I am not bringing religion into the sacred precinct of science. The biologists are already neck deep in religion."

LOL

 

[Jredfox4111]

@zone

No, not just philosophy. We know through science quite a few things about the history of the universe. David Christian: The history of our world in 18 minutes | Video on TED.com There are some grey areas where we're not sure, such as: what caused the 'Big Bang,' (which, as Cycel said is just a term, not an accurate picture of the expansion) or what caused life on Earth. It's not philosophy, there's just holes that have yet to be filled. We know what lies on either side of the holes in some cases, but we don't know what the hole actually is . . . That's science. We may never know everything, but science is there to help us learn as much as we can . . . I'm sure I'm sounding condescending now so I'll stop. Have a great day.


@ 2theWaters

Genesis 1: 25-27 -- And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2: 18-22 -- And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him and help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Yes sir, quite a historical document indeed. First we see animals created first then man and woman simultaneously afterward. After that we see Adam created first, then the animals, then Eve . . . Starting to sound like two myths pushed together to me.

 

[Cycel]

Steven J. Gould, and that other guy that nobody knows...

Niles Eldridge.

They are both frequently misquoted by creationists.

 

[Cycel]

Phillip Johnson, a Jefferson E. Peyser professor of law, emeritus at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law and author of "Darwin on Trial," said Darwinism is all about religion.

"Its (evolution's) impact is cultural," he said. "It's impact is it puts God out of reality. I am not bringing religion into the sacred precinct of science. The biologists are already neck deep in religion."

LOL

Hi Zone. I've certainly heard of Johnson. He may be a good lawyer, but his knowledge of evolution is limited by his religious bias. I recommend Donald Prothero and his book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, that is if you want to actually learn something about evolution. If you want to learn about law then perhaps Johnson would be a good bet. Oh, Richard Dawkins has written about Christianity in a book called The God Delusion. You may have heard of it. We could put a lot of letters behind his name as well, but that doesn't mean he's the one to read if you want to learn about Christianity. You may have noticed he has a strong anti-religious bias just as Johnson has a strong anti-evolution bias. There are better informational books to read.

 

[zone]

Hi Zone. I've certainly heard of Johnson. He may be a good lawyer, but his knowledge of evolution is limited by his religious bias. I recommend Donald Prothero and his book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, that is if you want to actually learn something about evolution. If you want to learn about law then perhaps Johnson would be a good bet. Oh, Richard Dawkins has written about Christianity in a book called The God Delusion. You may have heard of it. We could put a lot of letters behind his name as well, but that doesn't mean he's the one to read if you want to learn about Christianity. You may have noticed he has a strong anti-religious bias just as Johnson has a strong anti-evolution bias. There are better informational books to read.

hi Cycel

is there any sustantial disagreement among atheist scientists about the certainty of evolution (whichever non-creationist nuances they may have internal lively debates over)

is the matter largely settled.

 

[zone]

@zone

No, not just philosophy. We know through science quite a few things about the history of the universe. David Christian: The history of our world in 18 minutes | Video on TED.com There are some grey areas where we're not sure, such as: what caused the 'Big Bang,' (which, as Cycel said is just a term, not an accurate picture of the expansion) or what caused life on Earth. It's not philosophy, there's just holes that have yet to be filled. We know what lies on either side of the holes in some cases, but we don't know what the hole actually is . . . That's science. We may never know everything, but science is there to help us learn as much as we can . . . I'm sure I'm sounding condescending now so I'll stop. Have a great day.

if you dont know what caused the Big Bang, you have nothing.
nothing at all.

now, could you show me how you calculated the age of the universe.
thanks ever so much.

also could you please link to me actual literal photographs of the holes and what lies on either side of them.
i do not want any computer generated pictures.

no, you are not sounding condescending, i think its adorable.
you folks have been scratching on chalkboards and scratching out equations and scratching your heads for a long time.
but we have a silver bullet....i will tell you what it is, later.

out for a bit.

 

[RuthHannah]

if you dont know what caused the Big Bang, you have nothing.
nothing at all.

now, could you show me how you calculated the age of the universe.
thanks ever so much.

also could you please link to me actual literal photographs of the holes and what lies on either side of them.
i do not want any computer generated pictures.

no, you are not sounding condescending, i think its adorable.
you folks have been scratching on chalkboards and scratching out equations and scratching your heads for a long time.
but we have a silver bullet....i will tell you what it is, later.

out for a bit.

Did not God caused the Big Bang

 

[Jredfox4111]

@ zone

Haha! No, no. When I said 'holes' I was talking in figures to help explain. Not literal holes.

if you dont know what caused the Big Bang, you have nothing.
nothing at all.

I wouldn't say there's nothing . . . If you want to put it THAT way, you too have nothing because you can't know where god came from. I mean, it's just a question mark, it's an unknown; it's an answer in the shadowy corner. All we need is to turn on the light and discover it. When that light will come? . . . don't ask me, I'm no scientist. But the point is that nothing is hampered with by not knowing what caused it.

now, could you show me how you calculated the age of the universe.
thanks ever so much.

Background radiation. The current estimations say the universe is approximately 13.8 BILLION years old, give or take 37 million years or so. How do we know this? . . . Through correlating 'background radiation measurements' by a few probes, notably the WMAP and Planck. These satellite-probes measure the CMBR radiation, which is --

"The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly different densities, representing the seeds of all future structure: the stars and galaxies of today."

Using radio telescopes, the probes got this famous image:

It is the background radiation. By measuring this, scientists can estimate the above figure of time.

but we have a silver bullet....i will tell you what it is, later.

Can't wait.

 

[zone]

@ zone

Haha! No, no. When I said 'holes' I was talking in figures to help explain. Not literal holes.

not literal.
hmm...so they are theories.
postulations.
what do they represent....
dark matter

I wouldn't say there's nothing . . . If you want to put it THAT way, you too have nothing because you can't know where god came from. I mean, it's just a question mark, it's an unknown; it's an answer in the shadowy corner. All we need is to turn on the light and discover it. When that light will come? . . . don't ask me, I'm no scientist. But the point is that nothing is hampered with by not knowing what caused it.

well, sure - everything is hampered by not knowing.
because what you are trying to do...is find it...the Big Bang.

Background radiation. The current estimations say the universe is approximately 13.8 BILLION years old, give or take 37 million years or so. How do we know this? . . . Through correlating 'background radiation measurements' by a few probes, notably the WMAP and Planck. These satellite-probes measure the CMBR radiation, which is --

"The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly different densities, representing the seeds of all future structure: the stars and galaxies of today."

Using radio telescopes, the probes got this famous image: View attachment 66497

It is the background radiation. By measuring this, scientists can estimate the above figure of time.

Can't wait.

ah yes....the Background radiation
but - how do you know the light is the oldest light IN THE UNIVERSE
and...how did you determine it was imprinted on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old.

in other words, as i asked you - how did you calculate the age of the Universe.

lets examine the CMBR radiation measurements first.
if you get time, could you link me to your best sources.
t.y.

logging off.

 

[Wanderers]

My god! This forum is full of fail.

With evolution, we have reason to believe it. We have the "missing links," everywhere. We have genetics, we have theoretical proofs. (such as predicting chromosome loss when our ancestors branched off from chimpanzees and bonobos) All the evidence needed for it to be 'believed' is there AND MORE.

I think not or the 'theory' of evolution would be put to bed once and for all.

There is no identifiable link between homo sapiens and the animal kingdom so to speak. Or more specifically, where did the 'jump' occur between creatures of instinct and those with the ability to think, talk, reason, intellectualise, create etc etc.

Evolutionists have us believe that this 'jump' just happened through evolution. Thus, one day all that biological stuff either decided to evolve or it just happened by chance. Ok, ok, they couldn't have decided because that would involve intelligent 'creation' of sorts.

The questions remain: How did evolution decide that male and female sex organs were the best way to go, for example? Why did creatures evolve eyes? Isn't there an argument that the layers of the earth are not thick enough to allow for such a time span that would have allowed for the length of time needed to evolve?

The truth is that evolution is the best scientific explanation at the moment but it by no means absolute.

 

[Jredfox4111]

@ zone

not literal.
hmm...so they are theories.
postulations.
what do they represent....
dark matter

They don't mean anything . . . I was just using them to illustrate where we stand in understanding things. Don't worry about it.

ah yes....the Background radiation
but - how do you know the light is the oldest light IN THE UNIVERSE
and...how did you determine it was imprinted on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old.

in other words, as i asked you - how did you calculate the age of the Universe.

I'm sorry, I meant to give more. Pressed on time earlier. I'm about to be pressed on time again, so if you could message me, I'll address that specifically when more time comes around to me.

Thanks!


@ Wanderers

There is no identifiable link between homo sapiens and the animal kingdom so to speak. Or more specifically, where did the 'jump' occur between creatures of instinct and those with the ability to think, talk, reason, intellectualise, create etc etc.

Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo rhodesiensis, etc. These are all just for our species, and I only listed a few.

Why did creatures evolve eyes?

To better know their environment I assume.

Isn't there an argument that the layers of the earth are not thick enough to allow for such a time span that would have allowed for the length of time needed to evolve?

I'm sure there's an argument about every little punctuation mark in the theory, but never heard this one. Doesn't make much sense from that one sentence.

 

[p_rehbein]

..............hungry little fellas aren't they.........

 

[Cycel]

hi Cycel

is there any sustantial disagreement among atheist scientists about the certainty of evolution (whichever non-creationist nuances they may have internal lively debates over)

is the matter largely settled.

Hi Zone, always nice to chat with you.

It is completely settled that evolution occurred. There is no disagreement about that, not even with evolutionists with a Christian bent, and there are many. The fact is that evolutionists, whether they are atheists or Christians think the same things in regard evolution. There are plenty of debates over the details, but none over whether or not evolution occurs.

 

[Cycel]

View attachment 66505


..............hungry little fellas aren't they.........

LOL!!! Very creative of you, but I don't think he's a troll.

 

[Cycel]

There is no identifiable link between homo sapiens and the animal kingdom so to speak.

You think not? All female mammals are capable of producing milk to feed their young. Need I go on?

Or more specifically, where did the 'jump' occur between creatures of instinct and those with the ability to think, talk, reason, intellectualise, create etc etc.

Evolutionists have us believe that this 'jump' just happened through evolution. Thus, one day all that biological stuff either decided to evolve or it just happened by chance. Ok, ok, they couldn't have decided because that would involve intelligent 'creation' of sorts.

The questions remain: How did evolution decide that male and female sex organs were the best way to go, for example? Why did creatures evolve eyes? Isn't there an argument that the layers of the earth are not thick enough to allow for such a time span that would have allowed for the length of time needed to evolve?

May I ask if you have read any books on evolution by evolutionary biologists? Your questions lead me to think you have not. Once again I’d recommend Prothero, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. His book would be a good one because he spends a lot of time answering those questions I see creationists repeatedly asking.

 

[zone]

@ zone

They don't mean anything . . . I was just using them to illustrate where we stand in understanding things. Don't worry about it.

yes i know. you have holes in your understanding. black holes
since you have the holes, yet claim to know what lies on either side of them....i wondered what the holes were.
you could tell me what gaps/holes in understanding you have - by telling me what you do know...what lies on either side (truth - verified empirically, not hypothesis).

once again, please no computer modelling.
and no Kabbalah.

I'm sorry, I meant to give more. Pressed on time earlier. I'm about to be pressed on time again, so if you could message me, I'll address that specifically when more time comes around to me.

Thanks!

yup - but...well no, not PM.
if you could post your sources here we could discuss it.
okay. take care then.

no silver bullet (the fatal flaw in your science) until you explain what's on either side of your holes


zone

 

[Dwark]

Niles Eldridge.

They are both frequently misquoted by creationists.

That's the guy. Thanks. And they are both frequently said to be misquoted by evolutionists, when they have not been.

Cool beans.

 

[Dwark]

Two things: 1 -- Origin of Life has nothing to do with evolution, and I know you said it does, but it really doesn't. It covers everything AFTER abiogenesis or genesis.

Well, what are the scientific reasons for not including the "Naturalist" view of organic life evolving from organic material in abiogenesis?

 

[2Thewaters]

Show me a bible text for that.

 

[p_rehbein]

LOL!!! Very creative of you, but I don't think he's a troll.

I did not "create" that...........I simply googled "pictures of please do not feed the trolls signs" and a website "trollsmeme" came up, and this was the picture on it........

He isn't a troll? Seriously? Oh well.............does ANYONE STILL really believe that he is just an "innocent 18 year old young man sincerely wanting to teach us misguided believers here on CC the TRUTH?" Seriously?