The Foundations of the Debate

Welcome to the fray suzy. Or they just never understood what evolution really is. I usually find that what people who say this think evolution involves is some caricature of the science and the theories, as well as misunderstand science in general."Someonewhocares" is currently exibiting this ignorance on the great debate thread (don't post there, btw, it is only for the two designated participants) when he talks about "macroevolution" occuring in a single individual organism.Evolution is the change in species over time. It has been observed. It happens.When enough change occurs that two (or more) populations no longer interbreed (exchange gentic material), then speciation has occurred. This too has been observed. It happens.Some creationists call this level of evolution "microevolution" but this is really all that happens -- change in species over time.Once speciation has occurred then the two populations are no longer restricted from developing divergent characteristics and features in each of the daughter populations. Over time, geological time, and with the passage of numerous subsequent speciation events these divergent characteristics and features can become remarkable enough that people remark on them, and classify these into higher levels of difference than species classifications.Some creationists call this level of evolution "macroevolution" and then say silly things like "it can never happen" or that it has "never been observed in a single fossil" or that "there are no transitions that show this development in a single individual."The reality, of course, is that it does not -- cannot -- occur in individuals, seeing as it requires multiple speciation events to accumulate sufficient change for the (competeley arbitrary human) designation of higher taxa, and speciation events require multiple generations of individual changes to accumulate sufficient change for genetic isolation to be fixed in a population. It always amuses me when fundamentalists try to portray science as faith based, as this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of science:

quote:

---

faith n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

---

versus

quote:

---

science n.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

---

Or it betrays such a reliance on faith and the denial of evidence to the contrary, that such fundamentalists just don't understand what logical thought based on evidence involves.They think that all conclusions are based on their level of criteria for beliefs.The issue is not what you believe, but what you have to deny to maintain that belief. That the earth orbits the sun, or that the earth is old, or that evolution occurs. And the devil can cite scripture for his purpose. Next your going to tell me that heaven is on Uranus ... or was that another SuZaNNe?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

Just once, I'd like to see Evolutionists admit that the THEORY they have so much "faith" in,

---

They have the same kind of "faith" in the ToE that they have in the Germ Theory of Disease, the Atomic Theory of Matter, or the Theory of a Heliocentric solar System.I would more accuirately call it "trust", since it's too easy to confuse this, more accurate definition of "faith" with the one that does not accurately represent how scuientists view the ToE or any of those other theories; in short, the religious kind of faith. Belief without evidence, iow.

quote:

---

has been sold to the world as FACT, BEFORE PROOF, which in every other walk of life, is a sign of being swindled.

---

Nothing is "proven" in science. Not completely. "Proof" is for math.However, that evolution happens is a fact. We have observed it in real time both in the lab and in the field, and have also inferred it from fossil and genetic evidence.The Theory of Evolution organizes all of those bits of information into a coherent explanation.This is exactly the same as any other scientific theory.Now, if you would like to discuss some science, or specifically evolutionary science, please wander over to the science fora and pick a topic that interests you, or propose a new one.

---

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

I'm glad I amused you. Before I engage you any further, I'd like to ask a few questions, if you don't mind.Are you interested in discussing science? Or religion?Are you here merely to "spread the word," or are you interested in a genuine dialogue?I'm also generally curious about how you obtained your understanding of evolution.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

quote:

---

every boy and girl since the Scopes trial, HAS grown up with Evolution THEORY, "Drip Fed" as FACT

---

Yes, like the theories that the earth is round and that the U.S. Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 is "drip fed" as fact. So?-

quote:

---

"They" just 'invented' a god to control everything you do, and stop you having 'fun'!"

---

I guess some people do make this claim, but so what? People can make all sorts of claims; what matters is whether the claims stand up to scrutiny. The theory of evolution has been verified by over 150 years of scientific investigations.-

quote:

---

Just once, I'd like to see Evolutionists admit that the THEORY they have so much "faith" in, has been sold to the world as FACT, BEFORE PROOF

---

Why would evolutionists admit to something that is not true?-

quote:

---

I know I've been swindled out of every archeological "anomoly" DIS-proving evolution, hitting the international mainstream media on first speculation, as FACT, like 'hobbit' and 'mars life on rock' ANTI-science does for the Anti-Creator crowd.

---

This sentence is not very clear. You appear to be claiming that there is evidence that refutes the theory of evolution? If so, many creationists have claimed such evidence, but none of it has ever stood up under closer examination.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

Yes, if you think archaeology can "disprove" evolution, you have been swindled. I suggest you take back all those creationist videos and books and demand a refund.Edited by Ringo, : New improved subtitle.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

It's an impossible dabate to have if you choose to believe the likes of Darwin and his ilk, don't have an Anti-Biblical agenda.Saddly, even when you connect the dots of 'religious conspiracy' that feed evolution THEORY, evolutionist scream, "What about the science!", so then you have to connect all 'conspiracies in science' dots, where the Anti-Biblical folk will bog you down in the 'dating' debate forever.This really shouldn't be an issue for Bible believing Christians (as opposed to Trinitarian Trained 'Christians'), as Genesis starts with the RE-Creation of the world, AFTER the great war between God and Satan, that nearly destroyed everything. The first creation isn't mentioned 'till John.But I do have a theory as to why we are lied to, about what The Bible actually says, and why evolution is sold so agressively, BEFORE BECOMING FACT; proper study of The Bible, clearly shows modern Israel isn't situated in the Promised Land.People WILL worship the Beast, because the whole world is looking in the wrong place for the wrong signs, which God's enemies are constructing to 'fit' their deliberate MISS-telling of science and The Bible.Only one place fits all the discriptive meanings of Israel's Promised land, but you can't find it if you read The Bible as a Middle Eastern book written by and for Middle Eastern people, WHICH IT CLEARLY IS NOT.THEORIES ('stumbling blocks') of evolution, history, geology and other sciences, have long stopped the world reading The Bible as it is written; FOR and ABOUT the WHOLE world, and ALL peoples.This is NO ACCIDENT!I did once believe evolution didn't cancell out God, untill I discovered my faith had always been Christian and not the Catholic counterfeit my family tried to raise me in.
I couldn't square Catholic doctrine with science, which I love, then discovered Catholic wasn't Christian...I was right to 'instinctively' refuse to 'pray to Mary' as a child, but go straight to Christ...what else had I been 'taught' as 'Christian' but couldn't accept, that wasn't actually in The Bible?
Just about everything that lets 'men of science'(lets not forget the Jesuit influence on 'learning'), get in and stab at God and Biblical Truth!

quote:

---

It's an impossible dabate to have if you choose to believe the likes of Darwin and his ilk

---

Unfortunately, most of us don't have a choice in this matter. The facts are what they are, and some beliefs cannot be reconciled with the facts. Biblical, literal Genesis creationism is one of those beliefs that cannot be reconciled with the facts.-

quote:

---

Saddly, even when you connect the dots....

---

The only dots that need to be connected are those that involve the facts. And the facts, when the dots are connected, clearly show that the earth is four and a half billion years old, and that life has an almost equally long history that is well explained by the theory of evolution.-

quote:

---

But I do have a theory as to why we are lied to, about what The Bible actually says....

---

It doesn't matter much to me what the Bible says or what it doesn't say.-

quote:

---

and why evolution is sold so agressively

---

Evolution is sold so aggressively because according to the evidence it is clearly the best explanation for the world we see around us. Like the round earth is sold so aggressively.-

quote:

---

I did once believe evolution didn't cancell out God

---

Actually, it doesn't matter to me whether evolution does cancel out God. What matters to me is how well supported the theory of evolution is in the physical evidence that we can see here and now. And the theory of evolution is well supported; as far as we can tell, the theory of evolution is the explanation for why the biological world we see around us is the way it is; if this cancels out God, then I am afraid that God is cancelled out.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

Your post is a bit of an unfocussed rant. You'll have to think through what you're trying to say and present it in a way that others can follow.It also consists of assertions without any reasoning given. Since others may disagree with what you assert as fact you will convince peopel that what you post isn't even worth reading. If you want to carry on a dialogue with people then you have to tell them why you believe some of the things you believe.You are also ranting about something about which you posses near enough to zero knowledge. You have not learned anything aobut some of the topics but have chosen to believe what you are told about them. Some of those sources have been lieing to you.All in all not a great start. Slow down, spend more time reading and less time ranting and good luck.

You folk really should remember that the whole world isn't under the sway of the American marketing of their "Prosperity NOW", counterfeit 'Christianity'.Australia isn't America; we get no end of, "Only idiots believe in God!", peppered heavily throughout our social lives, media and entertainment.There is no social benefit to admitting you belief in The Bible, here, unless you're busy NETworking with some other counterfeit 'Christian' 'church'.People are caused to question, search and study through their own spirit, 'seeing' and 'hearing' anomolies that men of science can't or won't answer.To become a record setting and holding, breeder of Champions, around the world, I had to understand biology, genetics, 'seasons', and even the history of mans movements and migrations, among many other facts of life, nature and science...and tripped over glaring anomolies all over the place.It was by pursuing my worldly love of animals and nature, that I kept coming back to The Bible (a book that speaks well to a farmers mind), and finally had to admit it had better answers than all the 'boffins' I had to deal with, and that I'd always been Christian (NOT Trinitarian)in my understanding of life and the world.Raised Catholic, I had plenty of good reasons to resist 'religion', and to this day I don't belong to a worldly "church", as they all still hold onto a stumbling block (as mentioned in the letters to the 7 'churches'), bar the little powerless one, of spirit called, believers in our Redeeming Creator.

Couldn't be calmer.What you call an "unfocused rant", was a very focused, 'shorthand' statement of why those with faith in evolution THEORY, don't 'play fair' and keep 'moving the goal posts'.As creation covers, all creation, it has to be a huge topic;if you couldn't follow those simple hops, from little lies told about The Bible, leading to most people being deceived into worshiping the Beast, I don't know how you could possibly make sence of ALL the scientific papers that you need to make a case for evolution.Or do you just 'have faith', the "Industry of Science" would never lie to, deceieve or mis-lead ANYONE...like fellow scientists they destroy to advance their own careers.Though I do read your post as "panicky", due to your need to repeat the word, "rant"; a favourite tactic to shut others ears to the speaker.Or is it that you don't like folk mentioning that evolution, along with geology, archeology and history, are deliberately mis-taught to keep the world looking in the wrong place for the wrong signs?It also astounds me that Evolutionists get away with stating their case is proven, "As well as it needs to be?!?!", untill The Faithfull can "prove God".Well at least these forums prove one warning sign of end times; the wide spread of much knowledge, but no understanding.

You should watch your spelling too.

quote:

---

... every boy and girl since the Scopes trial, HAS grown up with Evolution THEORY, "Drip Fed" as FACT, into EVERY aspect of life, ...

---

suzy, I'm afraid you've been lied to about the Scope's Trial. It was a set-back for the teaching of evolution, not a victory. From my page which was a handout for a presentation I gave at church No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/EarlyBird.html:

quote:

---

[preceding section on the rise of the 1920's anti-evolution movement and reasons for it, including the increasing numbers of children attending high school, the acceptance of evolution by biologists resulting in it covered in the text books, and parents thus encountering it for the first time ever.]

​

- Around 1920, a coalition of conservative evangelical Protestants formed to combat modernism.
-- Their most important leader was William Jennings Bryan, a Presbyterian and a Progressive.
-- Progressives wanted a just and humane society and they believed that legislation could reform or prevent bad behavior.
-- Progressives feared that Darwinism would ruin the moral development of the children and "replace the Golden Rule with the law of the jungle."
-- The populist element of the movement believed that the people should decide what is taught in the public schools, not some intellectual elite; " . the hand that writes the check book rules the school."
-- As a result of their efforts, antievolution bills were introduced into twenty state legislatures during the 1920s:
--- Between 1923 and 1928, the bills became law in Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.
--- The Florida legislature passed a non-binding resolution condemning the teaching of evolution as "improper and subversive."
--- State educational bodies banned evolution from public school textbooks in Texas, North Carolina, and Louisiana.
--- The California Board of Education ordered that evolution be presented "as a theory only."
-- Elsewhere, pressure was put on the local level. Teachers were forbidden to teach or discuss evolution and some were fired for doing so.
--- In 1941, one-third of the teachers polled expressed fear of accepting evolution publicly.
--- In 1942, fewer than half the secondary biology teachers polled taught anything about evolution to their students.
-- The antievolutionists' case was built on doctrinal moralism and populism rather than on science. They did not want to convince scientists that they were wrong, only to make them irrelevant in determining what was to be taught in public schools. They just wanted to stop evolution.
- The Scopes Trial:
-- After Tennessee passed its antievolution law, the ACLU convinced John Scopes of Dayton to create a test case, with the approval of city hall. The ACLU hoped to carry the appeal of the case up to the US Supreme Court.
-- The trial was held in 1925. William Jennings Bryan helped the prosecution while Clarence Darrow helped the defense. It drew national attention and is still followed today. It has been fictionalized in the play, Inherit the Wind.
-- The outcome:
--- Scopes was found guilty and fined $100.
--- The Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the law. However, they threw out the conviction on a technicality, since the fine had been improperly levied by the judge instead of by the jury.
--- The ACLU never had a chance to appeal to the US Supreme Court.
--- The press made William Jennings Bryan look foolish, especially in his cross-examination as an expert on the Bible. In fact, they made the entire movement look foolish, which seemed to embarrass some supporters into silence.
-- When Bryan died a few days later, the movement lost much of its momentum.
-- Both sides tried to claim victory, but in truth a kind of truce existed which favored the antievolutionists.
--- The antievolution movement was no longer visibly active.
--- The "monkey laws" remained on the books until the end of the 1960s.
--- Textbook publishers exercised a form of self-censorship in which they removed evolution from their own books.
--- University teaching of evolution was never threatened and academia paid little attention to what was happening in the high schools. High school textbooks were not written by scientists.
--- High school students were not being taught about evolution.

​

[Followed by sections on how the 1957 launch of Sputnik caused us to put greater emphasis on science education, which led to the adoption of textbooks written by scientists, including the BSCS textbooks which brought evolution back into the high school. This led to Epperson vs Arkansas, in which a teacher was being required to use the BSCS books which would put her in violation of the Arkansas "monkey law" that would have led to her being barred from teaching, for life. This led to the US Supreme Court ruling against the Arkansas law, which led to the striking down of all the "monkey laws". Faced with evolution being taught again and their traditional means of barring that gone, the anti-evolution movement then created "creation science", a legalistic deception to get around the courts and which is the reason why this forum exists.]

---

As for your other "point", you have that wrong too. Evolution is not at fault there, but rather the cockeyed way that religion teaches morality. As gleaned from decades of conversations with believers, rants from believers, and sermons, the practical purpose for morality is completely ignored (OK, on very rare occasions there was a "gee whiz, this stuff really works" kind of comment) and the absolute statement has been repeatedly made and insisted upon fervently that without God there is no reason for morality and someone who doesn't believe in God would feel free to do anything he/she wants.That is what you are describing, isn't it? Please note that it is not evolution that is teaching that, but rather it is the anti-evolution religionists who actively teach it. Earlier, I was wanting to quote a local "creation science" activist in his story of how he had become an "atheist" (actually, he never was an atheist, but was only pretending to himself to be one; he freely admitted praying to God every single night while he was an "atheist" -- having myself been an atheist for over 40 years I can assure you that we don't do things like that). In the ninth grade his hormones were bubbling away, his religious teachers had given him the loophole that atheists don't need to behave themselves, so he took advantage of that loophole. Evolution had nothing to do with it, except that he used his religious teachers' misunderstanding of evolution as his excuse for "becoming an atheist". Who dunnit? His religious training, not evolution. Please place the blame where it belongs.If you want to oppose evolution, fine, only please use truthful claims and arguments. If you are going to use falsehoods to oppose evolution, then you will only succeed in misleading others. You indicate that your theology is different from "Trinitarian Christians". I'm a Unitarian myself, though not of the theistic variety. Tell me, does your theology condone or preach using lies and deception to serve your particular idea of God? Just curious, though it is a central question in this entire creation/evolution morass.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

You're funny.Do folk still use the, "The Bible says the world is flat" lie, to call Christians idiots?Christians never believed that rot, it was just another Trinitarian lie.Anyway, great to finally meet someone who 'knows' evolution is a 'fact' and doesn't just believe all the anomolies in the 'facts' of nature, won't some day be adjusted and made to fit the Theory.

We have some very intelligent Christians around here.If there are any idiots, they show themselves up. No need for embellishment.By the way, you're doing a pretty good job of illustrating "The Foundations of the Debate".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Please, learn to separate world opinion from American.Long before 1920, Darwinism had well and truely taken off and was being 'drip fed' through all sorts of social cliques, and very much so through the arts.Adults had to be 'converted' around the world, through social interaction, before America would dare let it into schools.But we all know kids are absorbed by and remember movies, line for line (unlike most school lessons), and evolution had a wonderfull way of making it into the dialog of movies on all subject matters, while ridiculous Catholic doctrine kept popping up as Christian, since the very begining of that brainwashing industry.So if the media isn't so powerfull in forming peoples opinions, why don't we get as many 'teen coming of age' movies that explain the science behind sexual morality, like the bonding hormone released by women during intercourse that explains why men keep being stalked by women who really thought they only wanted casual sex?But again, you confuse (deliberately?) Bible belief with religious doctrine falsely claiming to be Christian; they are VERY different.See, you sort of give yourself away here...from evolution to the, "It's all about sex" arguement.Also, why is it so very important, to have the world accept a theory that has no practical application (we've 'evolved' nothing better than what is), other than causing people to deny our Creator?