rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

The long journey

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

That's the great thing about evolution. Not only is it, err, what's the word? Oh yeah right. It also makes sense, and fits the observable evidence beautifully.

Just thought I'd get that in, before all the fundamentalists jump on it.

upnorthbob Loc: Wisconsin

:thumbup:

dljen Loc: Central PA

Love it, rg. Perfect for some of these guys!

1-2-3-bashhhhhhhhhhhh

user47602 Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32

... it's like they act like they're just the 6000 year old prototypes :mrgreen:

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Having held discussions with various individuals on the Hog I hardly consider it success.

magicray Loc: Tampa Bay, Florida

They will object to the 3.8 billion and claim it to be only 6,000 years. Maybe in their case that is true.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Fundamentalist here...if what you mean by that is "someone who sees this "observable evidence" differently than you"...

Evolution observable?....interesting.

Interesting that you used the word observable because "Evolution" isn't observable.

Natural selection is observable and "Fundy's" would be right there observing right alongside you!

But...that's not the same as "monkey's-to-men" Evolution.

Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.

You are describing "Operational science" when you talk about observing things.

Operational Science is:

the type of science that allows us to understand how DNA codes for proteins in cells. It is the type of science that has allowed us to cure and treat diseases, put a man on the moon, build satellites and telescopes, and make products that are useful to humans.

Biblical creationists believe that God has created a universe that uses a set of natural laws that operate consistently in the universe.

Understanding how those laws operate is the basis for scientific thinking.


This is quite different than Historical (Origins) Science, which is:

interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.

The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science.

Neither creation nor evolution is directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable.

Each is based on certain philosophical assumptions about how the earth began.

Naturalistic evolution assumes that there was no God, and biblical creation assumes that there was a God who created everything in the universe.

Starting from two opposite presuppositions and looking at the same evidence, the explanations of the history of the universe are very different.

The argument is not over the evidence—the evidence is the same—it is over the way the evidence should be interpreted.

Where you see "Evolution" I see God's creation.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

Once again you read what you want to read. I didn't say that evolution is observable, I said it fits the observable evidence.

No-one has ever claimed that man came from monkies. That's just you seeing what you want to see.

The argument is not over the way the evidence is interpreted. The fosil evidence all points to evolution. No mention in the bible about dinosaurs.

I don't want to put words into your mouth, so I'll phrase this as a question, do you believe that the bible is the word of god?

TrainNut Loc: Ridin' the rails

Your "facts" are all wrong.
Your ignorance is showing.

magicray Loc: Tampa Bay, Florida

Rob, your comments make good sense, although we disagree on the literal interpretation of the Bible. Environmental adaptation is a trigger for evolution. Over the course of time, species modify their phenotypes in ways that permit them to succeed in their environment. The Blue Moon Butterfly and the Pod Mrčaru Wall Lizards have been observable adaptations. This does not mean that Darwin's hypothesis about all life developing from a single cell is correct.

A great 4th to all!

magicray Loc: Tampa Bay, Florida

:thumbup: :lol:

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Then we agree...our bias' and presuppositions shape our conclusions.


You are right..I didn't read that carefully enough.




Huh?

Nobody as ever said that ape are our "ancestors"

YOU MUST BE KIDDING.

I don't know where you went to school but in the U.S. it's been taught since I was a kid...

You can play semantic games with my words..."monkey's to men" or you can substitute "molecules to men" if that makes you happier....that's fine.

You can substitute the phrase "ape-like creature" for "monkey" if it makes you feel better..you can use 'hominid" if you want...it makes no difference to me.




Hahahah....you first agree with me...then you backtrack a minute later....oh brother.

Are you REALLY going to say that the WORD dinosaur MUST APPEAR in the Bible for it to be an accurate record of our origins?

Sheesh...you've used some lame-o arguments in your dealings with me but that's gotta be the worst.




Of course I do.

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

Most people feel bass players are only one generation removed.

http://www.zazzle.com.au/evolution_rocks_t_shirt-235128340139931140

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Not sure if I'm the "rob" you are addressing but I'll answer :)



You'll have to define "evolution" before we can go further. I've found that Evolutionists conflate the term idea of "adaption" with "evolution"

If you mean that organisms adapt to their environment, then we are in agreement.




True...but keep in mind that mutations (the process of change in the Evolutionary guess) always leads to a LOSS of genetic information or at best...a rearrangement.

For the idea that one kind of animal changed into another over a long period of time with small incremental changes requires adding information to the genome




Yes! And those who believe that the bible is God's true account of the origin of life LOVE how that happens! Isn't God's creation amazing?




Agreed.