No Sheep Here
New member
I haven't seen Alate lying in this thread, but I have seen you do it in this one and in other threads. Stop being a liar for Christ.
toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
I haven't seen Alate lying in this thread, but I have seen you do it in this one and in other threads. Stop being a liar for Christ.
I have found taikoo to be honest if misguided. She tries to be nice as well. Alateone on the other hand reminds me of all the witches i knew as teachers in highschool. She is haughty and a B word to the nth degree. She does not look at creationism with an honest outlook whatsoever. She refuses to look at ideas a and try to understand them. Anything that does not support evolution is ridiculous and she refuses to even entertain them for one second. She also treats YECs with the worst possible manner. I hate dealing with her and always regret it when i read one of her posts. Barbarian can be a clown sometimes at least.
No Sheep Here
New member
No, Alate and Taikoo are just educated on on the topic which you either can't comprehend or refuse to comprehend. He doesn't buy creationism, because creationism is bs. If these fundie creationists want to be taken serious, them they need to put in the same hrs in the lab and field as the real scientist do, but they don't. They'd much rather spend time lobbying and on debate tours trying to get around having to participate in the same scientific rue as everyone else. I mean, come on, you disprove evolution with data and you'd get your credit. They aren't being denied the opportunity to do so; they just want to avoid the scientific method because they know they have o facts to support their view. There was once a scientist who went against the majority view in the science field with his unusual idea of the Big Bang, he was a Christian. The entire scientific community fought him on it as they do with everyone else, and he won, NOT BECAUSE HE WENT ON DEBATE TOURS AND AMAZED DUMB CHURCH AUDIENCES WITH FANCY WORDS AND BS FACTS, BUT BECAUSE HE HAD DATA TO SUPPORT HIS VIEW .
Alate_One
Well-known member
Challenges have been presented by dozens of people, you simply ignore them. I presented you with a challenge, you didn't answer it either. If you really understood Dr. Brown's work, you'd be able to explain exactly where I went wrong. As I do for you on a regular basis with science.
You're the one that said you tested Walt Brown's ideas. Now you can't even come up with an experiment to test liquefaction? I think it's pretty obvious who the liar is.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Gee volt, I think your main problem is you don't want to be confronted with information that shows you are wrong. I though we were having a rational discussion in the other thread. Going to go on a name calling tirade shows that it isn't me with the problem, it is you.
I WAS a YEC at one point volt. I HAVE entertained nearly every idea you post already. Over and over I have found YEC ideas to be painfully wrong. Quite a number didn't even make sense when I was a YEC. But I pretended the problems didn't exist because I felt it would put my faith in jeopardy, much as you are doing now. Later on I realized YEC wasn't the huge issue I had made it out to be.
I tell you the truth volt. Sorry you hate it so much. If you really want to stay a YEC, and it upsets you to argue, stop arguing over it. When you're ready to entertain the other possibility, I'll be here.
Eggasai
New member
I believe in evolution as the change of alleles in populations over time, just not the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. I have no problem with evolution as it is properly defined scientifically, what I have a problem with is Darwinism. When it comes to evolution as natural history I am skeptical and what concerns me the most is the supposed common ancestry of apes and humans I am consumed with incredulity. I am especially leery of homology arguments.
Now if by evolution you mean transitions like the evolutionary giant leap from primordial soup to functional cells. Here is the irreducible complexity of a bacterium, do note that the flagellum is only one aspect of the overall complexity:
Now tell me what the common ancestor of plants and animals had in common with plant cells and prokaryotes.
Oh yea, the transitional fossils. Maybe you can tell me why we have literally hundreds of fossils representing our ancestors and virtually none for chimpanzee ancestors. Could it be that every time an ape fossil is dug up in Africa it is passed off as one of our ancestors?
Think I'm exaggerating? Consider this, while the Piltdown hoax is being passed of as a transitional fossil the Taung Child was considered a chimpanzee. Then with the demise of the Piltdown hoax it becomes one of those mythical transitionals. Raymond Dart who dug the lime endocast out of a box was the one who suggested to Louis Leaky the name 'handy man' or 'homo habilis' for his new classification group. What he did was to abandon the Cerebral Rubicon (the 600cc cut off for Homo) in favor of 'tool use' and a long list of contrived features.
No wait, there's more. Do you realize that if there were no living chimpanzees we would have no fossil evidence that chimpanzee ever existed? None of the transitionals in other taxons have the slightest bearing on the historicity of Scripture or essential Christian doctrine except the transition from ape to man. This is the vital transition that would have had to happen for us to have evolved from apes. Human and chimpanzee brains
Given that fact that mutations in brain related genes always yield severely deleterious diseases and disorders you are left with supposition and speculation rather then a molecular mechanism.
We are being told that we are 98% the same in our DNA as the chimpanzee. The fact of the matter is scientists have known better for years and yet they propagate this myth with shameless abandon.
With the length of the two Y chromosomes being 24 mbp in the chimpanzee genome and 59 mbp in the human genome, what is the divergence as a percentage?
I added up the size of the chromosomes in the NCBI genome viewer and what I came up with is 3,088 mbp (million base pairs) in the human genome and 3,172 mbp in the chimpanzee genome for a difference of divergence based on the number of base pairs only.
It gets a little strange when you start to compare Human Chromosome 2 that weighs in at 243 mbp compared to the Chimpanzee Chromosomes 2 (a) 114 mbp and 2 (b) at 250 mbp. So the Chimpanzee is 121 mbp larger counting the base pairs of both Chimpanzee Chromosomes 2 (a) and 2 (b).
Then there is the Y Chromosome in the Chimpanzee genome that is 24 mbp long compared to the Human Y Chromosome that is 59 mbp for a difference of 35 mbp.
The Chimpanzee genome has 84 mbp then the human genome not counting the SNPs. Something else that you might not realize, if you list the differences between the various chromosomes (Ch 1 to Ch 1...) The differences between the chromosomes adds up the 222 mbp.
The analysis of modest-sized insertions reveals
Species specific means it exists in one but not in the other, you don't get to halve the unique sequences. The divergence has to be at least 3% based on the length of the sequences alone.
It has been known for years that we are 98% the same in our DNA as the Chimpanzees but the homology arguments persist. That's what is wrong with Darwinism, by making evolution a foregone conclusion scientists are left with a false confidence in a common ancestor. Then after habitually rearranging the evidence around the proposition that human descent can be explained by natural mechanisms they end up distorting the evidence.
Evolution is riddled with gigantic leaps in logic, billions of years and crucial transitions that are never directly observed or demonstrated are passed off as fact. It's not, it's a naturalistic assumption being passed off as a conclusion based on the evidence.
Accepting human evolution from that of apes is not only a rejection of the Pauline doctrine of original sin, it's a myth of human ancestry. When the New Testament writers mention Adam they speak of him as the first man and the reason why all of us are under the curse of sin and death. Paul tells us that 'by one man sin entered the world' and 'by one man's offense death reigned'. (Rom 5:12-19). Paul ties Adam directly to the need for justification and grace in his exposition of the Gospel in his letter to the Romans. Luke lists Adam in his genealogy calling him 'son of God' indicating he had no human parents but rather was created (Luke 3:23-28). My concern is simply this, the myth of human lineage linked to ape ancestry contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture and essential doctrine, specifically justification by faith. Paul is clear that all have sinned in Adam and that is the reason that we cannot keep the Mosaic law.
Charles Darwin in the preface to ‘On the Origin of Species’ credits Jean-Baptiste Lamarck with being the first man to propose that:
This is what I have come to recognize as an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic explanations for the lineage of all living things. For years I focused exclusively on the Scientific literature regarding Chimpanzee and Human common ancestry and found that the human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes.
The most dramatic and crucial adaptation being the evolution of the human brain. Charles Darwin proposed a null hypothesis for his theory of common descent :
With a cranial capacity nearly three times that of the chimpanzee the molecular basis for this giant leap in evolutionary history is still almost, completely unknown. Changes in brain related genes are characterized by debilitating disease and disorder and yet our decent from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee would have had to be marked by a massive overhaul of brain related genes. I propose that a critical examination of common descent in the light of modern insights into molecular mechanisms of inheritance is the single strongest argument against human/ape common ancestry.
Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will find a disease or disorder effecting the human brain as the result of a mutation.
Human Genome Project Landmark Poster
I don't see any reason to reject TOE in it's entirety but don't lose your head. :execute: There is ample reason to remain skeptical.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Now if by evolution you mean transitions like the evolutionary giant leap from primordial soup to functional cells. Here is the irreducible complexity of a bacterium, do note that the flagellum is only one aspect of the overall complexity:
Now tell me what the common ancestor of plants and animals had in common with plant cells and prokaryotes.
Oh yea, the transitional fossils. Maybe you can tell me why we have literally hundreds of fossils representing our ancestors and virtually none for chimpanzee ancestors. Could it be that every time an ape fossil is dug up in Africa it is passed off as one of our ancestors?
Think I'm exaggerating? Consider this, while the Piltdown hoax is being passed of as a transitional fossil the Taung Child was considered a chimpanzee. Then with the demise of the Piltdown hoax it becomes one of those mythical transitionals. Raymond Dart who dug the lime endocast out of a box was the one who suggested to Louis Leaky the name 'handy man' or 'homo habilis' for his new classification group. What he did was to abandon the Cerebral Rubicon (the 600cc cut off for Homo) in favor of 'tool use' and a long list of contrived features.
No wait, there's more. Do you realize that if there were no living chimpanzees we would have no fossil evidence that chimpanzee ever existed? None of the transitionals in other taxons have the slightest bearing on the historicity of Scripture or essential Christian doctrine except the transition from ape to man. This is the vital transition that would have had to happen for us to have evolved from apes. Human and chimpanzee brains
Given that fact that mutations in brain related genes always yield severely deleterious diseases and disorders you are left with supposition and speculation rather then a molecular mechanism.
We are being told that we are 98% the same in our DNA as the chimpanzee. The fact of the matter is scientists have known better for years and yet they propagate this myth with shameless abandon.
As far as looking at specific genes, the chimp and human Y chromosomes had a dramatic difference in gene content of 53 percent. In other words, the chimp was lacking approximately half of the genes found on a human Y chromosome. Because genes occur in families or similarity categories, the researchers also sought to determine if there was any difference in actual gene categories. They found a shocking 33 percent difference. The human Y chromosome contains a third more gene categories--entirely different classes of genes--compared to chimps. (New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., & Brian Thomas, M.S.)
With the length of the two Y chromosomes being 24 mbp in the chimpanzee genome and 59 mbp in the human genome, what is the divergence as a percentage?
I added up the size of the chromosomes in the NCBI genome viewer and what I came up with is 3,088 mbp (million base pairs) in the human genome and 3,172 mbp in the chimpanzee genome for a difference of divergence based on the number of base pairs only.
It gets a little strange when you start to compare Human Chromosome 2 that weighs in at 243 mbp compared to the Chimpanzee Chromosomes 2 (a) 114 mbp and 2 (b) at 250 mbp. So the Chimpanzee is 121 mbp larger counting the base pairs of both Chimpanzee Chromosomes 2 (a) and 2 (b).
Then there is the Y Chromosome in the Chimpanzee genome that is 24 mbp long compared to the Human Y Chromosome that is 59 mbp for a difference of 35 mbp.
The Chimpanzee genome has 84 mbp then the human genome not counting the SNPs. Something else that you might not realize, if you list the differences between the various chromosomes (Ch 1 to Ch 1...) The differences between the chromosomes adds up the 222 mbp.
The analysis of modest-sized insertions reveals
- ~32 Mb of human-specific sequence and
- ~35 Mb of chimpanzee-specific sequence,
Species specific means it exists in one but not in the other, you don't get to halve the unique sequences. The divergence has to be at least 3% based on the length of the sequences alone.
Sequence analysis confirms the existence of a high degree of sequence similarity between the two species. However, and importantly, this 98.6% sequence identity drops to only 86.7% taking into account the multiple insertions/deletions (indels) dispersed throughout the region...
...Hence our perceived sequence divergence of only 1% between these two species appears to be erroneous, because this work, along with another recently published analysis, puts both species much further apart, >10% here and ≈5% in another recently published study, albeit the latter study compared shorter segments of both genomes. This relatively high and previously unexpected degree of sequence divergence might have functional implications not only within the coding sequences itself but also within regulatory elements Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 June 24
...Hence our perceived sequence divergence of only 1% between these two species appears to be erroneous, because this work, along with another recently published analysis, puts both species much further apart, >10% here and ≈5% in another recently published study, albeit the latter study compared shorter segments of both genomes. This relatively high and previously unexpected degree of sequence divergence might have functional implications not only within the coding sequences itself but also within regulatory elements Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 June 24
It has been known for years that we are 98% the same in our DNA as the Chimpanzees but the homology arguments persist. That's what is wrong with Darwinism, by making evolution a foregone conclusion scientists are left with a false confidence in a common ancestor. Then after habitually rearranging the evidence around the proposition that human descent can be explained by natural mechanisms they end up distorting the evidence.
Idols of the theater - "...there are idol which have crept into men's minds from the various dogmas of peculiar systems of philosophy, and also from the perverted rules of demonstration...for we regard all the systems of philosophy hitherto received or imagined, as so many plays brought out and performed, creating fictitious and theatrical worlds." (Francis Bacon)
Evolution is riddled with gigantic leaps in logic, billions of years and crucial transitions that are never directly observed or demonstrated are passed off as fact. It's not, it's a naturalistic assumption being passed off as a conclusion based on the evidence.
Accepting human evolution from that of apes is not only a rejection of the Pauline doctrine of original sin, it's a myth of human ancestry. When the New Testament writers mention Adam they speak of him as the first man and the reason why all of us are under the curse of sin and death. Paul tells us that 'by one man sin entered the world' and 'by one man's offense death reigned'. (Rom 5:12-19). Paul ties Adam directly to the need for justification and grace in his exposition of the Gospel in his letter to the Romans. Luke lists Adam in his genealogy calling him 'son of God' indicating he had no human parents but rather was created (Luke 3:23-28). My concern is simply this, the myth of human lineage linked to ape ancestry contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture and essential doctrine, specifically justification by faith. Paul is clear that all have sinned in Adam and that is the reason that we cannot keep the Mosaic law.
Charles Darwin in the preface to ‘On the Origin of Species’ credits Jean-Baptiste Lamarck with being the first man to propose that:
‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.’
This is what I have come to recognize as an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic explanations for the lineage of all living things. For years I focused exclusively on the Scientific literature regarding Chimpanzee and Human common ancestry and found that the human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes.
The most dramatic and crucial adaptation being the evolution of the human brain. Charles Darwin proposed a null hypothesis for his theory of common descent :
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
With a cranial capacity nearly three times that of the chimpanzee the molecular basis for this giant leap in evolutionary history is still almost, completely unknown. Changes in brain related genes are characterized by debilitating disease and disorder and yet our decent from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee would have had to be marked by a massive overhaul of brain related genes. I propose that a critical examination of common descent in the light of modern insights into molecular mechanisms of inheritance is the single strongest argument against human/ape common ancestry.
Pick a chromosome, any chromosome and you will find a disease or disorder effecting the human brain as the result of a mutation.
Human Genome Project Landmark Poster
I don't see any reason to reject TOE in it's entirety but don't lose your head. :execute: There is ample reason to remain skeptical.
Grace and peace,
Mark
The ignorance in this thread is depressing
Voltaire makes a mockery of his name and should change it ASAP. Stripe is a hopeless arrogant fundamentalist goon who has problems with reality and admitting when he is wrong. Avatar is just a str8 idiot. Csuguy admits he hasn’t really read up in detail on TOE, and then asserts that it is not a proper scientific theory. I don't see why anyone is even taking Nicholsmom serious enough to reply to her silly posts. I was reading through an old thread and discovered a post where she ignorantly said that A.D. stands for After Death.lain: Traditio says that it's not hard to see how things change over time. He appeared to be defending evolution, but then he makes another post just to make it clear to all that he is another creationist goon, just in case we had him confused with a thinking man. Oh yea, and Lighthouse is a dishonest idiot.
Cute.
Here's what it's really about:
Evolution challenges some basic concepts in fundamentalist theology:
1. The age of the Earth, as calculated from Biblical evidence
2. That God created man (directly, from dust)
3. That death only entered the world after "the fall". Evolution doesn't work without death.
So it comes down the choice between science or your beliefs. A choice which is a direct result of a very peculiar set of beliefs- there are plenty of religious people of many religions who have no issue with this.
If you are a fundamentalist Bible-literalist, and afraid to challenge your set of beliefs, you'll do and say nearly anything to avoid dealing with the challenge of evolutionary science. Don't look for intellectual honesty in those quarters- they can't afford it.
Dalai Lama : If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.
No Sheep Here
New member
I already understand why they do it, I just do not share your tolerance for their ignorance. Fact is, these people wish to change science education in America to reflect their BS beliefs and they should be rebuked with a heavy tone. They're ignorant and they should be told it bluntly.
It's not my fault they have fears based on BS, they need to grow up.
One Eyed Jack
New member
And don't forget, there are Muslims in the world who have memorized the entire Koran and don't even speak a word of Arabic. If you listen to them recite it, it sounds like they're singing.
By the way, was that a Dimetrodon a few pages back?
Oh you poor little child. :allsmile:
What are you? 14 years old? :baby:
:mock: Sheep.
Hey nosheepdunghere, i find you and your kind extremely depressing. You people are the worst filth in society. If i am so ignorant that it depresses you, I challenge you to a one on one. Let us discuss why you feel the TOE describes reality and why i don't think it does. I am talking about the common descent of all animals from simpler forms aspect of TOE. I will devote all my time on this site to our discussion until we call it quits. Ok?
It's not my fault they have
fears based on BS, they
need to grow up.--- you and chair are not psychoanalysts. No fear here. It is called trusting God at his word. To call God a liar is serious business if he is real, and i know God is real. I am willing to face torture if that were the fate of those who believe and it simply was not true.
fears based on BS, they
need to grow up.--- you and chair are not psychoanalysts. No fear here. It is called trusting God at his word. To call God a liar is serious business if he is real, and i know God is real. I am willing to face torture if that were the fate of those who believe and it simply was not true.
What do I have to do? Call you stupid since you are being stupid? Your statement doesn't stand and I gave you this huge sign in my last post trying to point you away from being stupid, but you just swerved right into stupid like I didn't try and help at all.
Here, I'll give you the sign again, and then a hint: "Wait, wait . . . you think *scientists and everyone else* is rich, powerful and famous?"
Note the bolded part. If you believe I said that scientists are rich because they believe in evolution, then you'd also have to believe I said everyone is rich because of what they believe.
Here's the hint: not everyone is rich, especially the ones who get fired from their jobs.
And a bonus hint because you are female: if you couldn't tell, when I said that people pursue riches, and/or fame, and/or power, it did not mean that people only want to be millionaires or better; It doesn't mean they want fame like a rock star; It doesn't mean they want power like a politician. It means we all pursue something when we do our work, whether it be money, and/or impressing someone, and/or being able to make people do what we want them to do. Getting fired usually doesn't accomplish any one of those three.
My comments were based on an understanding of where you come from belief-wise.
Have you ever considered that what you think is "God's Word" might not really literally be that? That is your basic error.
That's not part of evolutionary theory. But there are theories about that. We can talk about them later. For me, the most compelling fact is that the feature that had to come first in cellular life is the simplest, and easiest to demonstrate in the lab. But back to the point...
Turns out that there is are simpler versions of the bacterial flagellum, and they work fine. The type IV secretory apparatus, for example, doesn't even cause motion but instead is used for secretory functions.
There's a whole string of related structures, with only the most complicated used for motion.
http://www.horizonpress.com/flagella
Nucleus and cell membrane. The mitochondria turn out to be genetically and functionally like bacteria, and reproduce by their own, bacterial DNA. Plant chlorplasts are functionally and genetically like cyanobacteria. Both organelles, and maybe some others are almost certainly ancient endosymbionts. BTW, the evolution of endosymbiosis has been directly observed in eukaryotic cells. Details on request.
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/studies/mitochondria/mitorigin.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Endosymbiosis.html
Chimpanzees lived in forests. Forest soils are highly acidic, and bones don't last long. Note that we don't have any fossils of forest-dwelling hominids, either.
Not unless you're paranoid beyond reason.
Most of the time. Your Piltdown, story for example. We don't know who faked it, but we do know evolutionists debunked it.
In fact, it was impossible to use the "Rubicon"; it was an infant. You've been suckered again.
True. We'd never know there was an entire group of apes that split off from our line after we diverged from the group that gave rise to gorillas. There are no fossil chimps found so far. And given the conditions, it's unlikely we'll find any.
That has no bearing on Scripture, either. It only has a bearing on a particular modern interpretation of Scripture.
DNA hybridization gives that result. More recent techniques using genes shows greater divergence. But we are still genetically closer to chimps than anything else.
As far as looking at specific genes, the chimp and human Y chromosomes had a dramatic difference in gene content of 53 percent. In other words, the chimp was lacking approximately half of the genes found on a human Y chromosome. Because genes occur in families or similarity categories, the researchers also sought to determine if there was any difference in actual gene categories. They found a shocking 33 percent difference. The human Y chromosome contains a third more gene categories--entirely different classes of genes--compared to chimps. (New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., & Brian Thomas, M.S.)
You've got it slightly garbled. What's remarkable is that the chimp has lost so much Y chromosome material. Read about it here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100113131505.htm
And of course, your other error has to do with trying to think of the chromosome as the genome. Humans have one less chromosome than chimps. But then we found...
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
A chromosome fusion, right down to remains of telomeres where the fusion occured. Do you see how they tricked you?
See above. If you have another one, let's examine that one.
Perhaps you can explain the evidence for that assumption. If God chose to give two hominids immortal souls, why would you tell Him that was wrong? Evolutionary theory is consistent with two original ancestors for the human race.
I would be interested in seeing your evidence that if Luke repeats an allegory, that makes it a literal history.
I know you'd like us to believe it, but it is not, and never has been, orthodox Christian belief.
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
Not surprisingly, we have all sorts of hominid skulls, showing all graduations of development of the brain. It was not even excessively rapid.
As I showed you previously, a nice and surprisingly complete curve of brain size can be shown from hominin skulls over time.
Of course, the rare favorable mutation tends to be preserved, and the more numerous unfavorable ones tend to be removed. So your argument basically boils down to "there is no such thing as natural selection." But that is easily demonstrated. Undergraduates do it every year.
That's the point. The tracks at Paluxy have weathered as your post says. But there are a number of places that could be excavated if scientists cared to overturn the apple cart.
You have the same reading comprehension problem that Alate has.
All this is very nice, but if you want to keep your job and you're a scientist, you'd better not let it be known that you don't agree with evolution.
Now if by evolution you
mean transitions like the
evolutionary giant leap
from primordial soup to
functional cells.
That's not part of
evolutionary theory. But
there are theories about
that-------barbarian. So the TOE doesn't have squat to say about how cells came into existence?
mean transitions like the
evolutionary giant leap
from primordial soup to
functional cells.
That's not part of
evolutionary theory. But
there are theories about
that-------barbarian. So the TOE doesn't have squat to say about how cells came into existence?
No Sheep Here said:
I don't deny evolution as a general process of change and becoming. It's difficult to deny what is plainly evident from observation. As a matter of fact, we presently see things evolving.
What I disagree with is the application of evolution to explain the origin of the human species. This isn't evident from the science, and I like to keep a healthy dose of philosophical skepticism when it comes to speculative science.
I grant you, on the other hand, that humans presently are evolving (at least in some fashion), and this is an adequate explanation for the various differences we see among different groups of human populations (why Africans are black and Europeans white, for example).
I don't deny evolution as a
general process of change
and becoming. It's difficult
to deny what is plainly
evident from observation.
As a matter of fact, we
presently see things
evolving.
What I disagree with is the
application of evolution to
explain the origin of the
human species. This isn't
evident from the science,
and I like to keep a healthy
dose of philosophical
skepticism when it comes
to speculative science.-------Welcome to the club traditio. I could not agree more. I Guess its true that not all catholics parrot the party line.
general process of change
and becoming. It's difficult
to deny what is plainly
evident from observation.
As a matter of fact, we
presently see things
evolving.
What I disagree with is the
application of evolution to
explain the origin of the
human species. This isn't
evident from the science,
and I like to keep a healthy
dose of philosophical
skepticism when it comes
to speculative science.-------Welcome to the club traditio. I could not agree more. I Guess its true that not all catholics parrot the party line.
- Status