A Christian reformer?

[Evil Knevil]

Oh and, unless you want to start another thread, I'm not threadjacking anymore.

[Evil Knevil]

I'm backing off for a while, so that I don't cause a hissy-fit with Fez (oh and prove me wrong Fascist).

Oh and my mistake.... I meant two generations. It was three generations that the Gospels were finalised. I misread my sources....

I'll bb

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil
I'm backing off for a while, so that I don't cause a hissy-fit with Fez (oh and prove me wrong Fascist).

I already have proved you wrong in the past.. but lets go back to the topic... I am not a fascist either.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Mtg...I was unaware of any evidence of one species evolving into another species. Evolution within a species is a proven fact. But evolution from one species to another is just a theory without any hard evidence to support AFAIK.

Could you also give me an example of what physical evidence incontovertably disputes biblical text?

Uh, wrong:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

We've observed speciation.

"Microevolution" and "Macroevolution" are terms invented by Creationists to obfuscate the truth of observed evolution. They asked for scientists to prove evolution by showing it in progress. Okay, so scientists showed the Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation + natural selection in action. Creationists then moved the goal post by making the specious claim that what scientists observed was "microevolution," and that "macroevolution" was not possible.

However, have any Creationists tried to prove their assertion? No. How can they? Where do they delineate where the variations in a species from generation to generation reach some sort of barrier? What is this barrier? They don't explain. That's because the notion is patently absurd, and once again relies on some sort of supernatural barrier being put up that is untestable.

"Macroevolution" is nothing more than the cumulative microevolution of a species to the point where it becomes something demonstrably different. Given enough generations and numbers of a species, it's going to happen. Darwin observed this in his trip to the Galapagos islands. He collected samples of numerous birds from the islands, including what he thought were 13 variations of Finches. He was startled with John Gould, the biologist to whom he gave the samples to study, told him what he had brought back weren't just varieties, but different species. Upon tracing the locations of the islands where each type of bird was found, it was possible to see a clear progression of evolution of the birds until speciation had occured.

One thing people don't realize is that Darwin was a committed creationist until he undertook his journey on the Beagle. His conclusions were made from direct scientific observation, and he saw with his own eyes that evolution was the only explanation for the way in which species were distributed in the Galapagos Islands.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
If we can never observe "significant evolutionary changes" because the timespan is way too short, then macro-evolution can not be considered fact. After all, if we never actually observe "significant evolutionary changes", then how can we be 100% sure that they ever occur? It is possible that micro-evolution within a species occurs, but that macro-evolution from one species to another does not.

This is scientific nonsense. One does not have to directly observe something to consider it scientific fact. Were that the case, you'd best start reconsidering a good deal of modern science besides evolution.

Observational inference is perfectly valid when one as overwhelming evidence that something occured, even sans direct observation. How would we ever prove a murder happened without witnesses? Forensic science is built on the idea of observational inference.

The fossil record is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution. Creationist retreat further and further into the gaps as more and more fossil evidence comes to light, or they fall back on demanding complete sets of fossils for every possible minute transition, and won't accept anything less as proof.

Here are some pages I suggest you read before making false assertions (doubtless repeated from creationist sources) as to what the fossil record does or does not say:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#misc

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

All of the above show how outright false creationist claims for there being no evidence of evolution truly are.

Another thing people fail to consider is what happened when Darwin published all the evidence he collected. Keep in mind that prior to his voyages, the vastly predominate accepted theory was of creation. A few scientists had proposed some sort of evolutionary mechanics, but they were considered fringe.

After Darwin published and the scientific community saw his evidence, they thought it was so thorough and complete that, virtually overnight, evolution became the accepted norm of biology. Now, I ask you, do you really think tens of thousands of scientists around the world would have changed their view so quickly and absolutely without what they saw as irrefutable evidence?

Why would 99.9% of todays biologists, all trained in rigorous scientific method, still adhere to evolution as absolute fact were there not overwhelming evidence for it?

[Giancarlo]

Talkorigins is an excellent site I must say... the creationists here will have problems trying to dispute what they say.

[Boris Godunov]

Uh, anyway, this has been a bit of a threadjack, but somewhat related to the original post, I posit this:

I have heard many Christians, especially funamentalists, claim that Jesus died for our sins. When asked about people who don't sin, they respond it's impossible to be without sin, because of the Original Sin, which taints us all to this day. This is, of course, the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden of eating the Fordbidden Fruit.

Now, I had always assumed fundamentalists reject evolution just because they found it distasteful to think their ancestors of millions of years ago were apes, and that it contradicted a literal interpretation of Genesis. But if Christian doctrine is so built upon the notion of Original Sin, then I can see the threat of evolution. Evolution being fact proves that Adam and Eve is a myth, and thus eliminates Original Sin as a factor in the world. This, in turn, would render Jesus's mission moot!

Now, perhaps this is the kind of thing Spong is referring to? If Christians are to accept the scientific truths of evolution, they should reject creeds that allude to Original Sin?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Fez
the creationists here will have problems trying to dispute what they say.

Not really. The talkorigins site constantly distorts evidence to make it fit evolution, misrepresents creationism, and ignores evidence that disproves evolution.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Not really. The talkorigins site constantly distorts evidence to make it fit evolution, misrepresents creationism, and ignores evidence that disproves evolution.

There is no evidence that disproves evolution. That is all creationist nonsense. Talkorigins uses the facts when it makes statements about the reality of things. Evolution is a fact. That is infallible. Creationism is not.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I have heard many Christians, especially funamentalists, claim that Jesus died for our sins. When asked about people who don't sin, they respond it's impossible to be without sin, because of the Original Sin, which taints us all to this day. This is, of course, the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden of eating the Fordbidden Fruit.

Original sin just means that human nature is corrupt, ie humans tend towards doing wrong. We are not sinners because Adam and Eve sinned, we are sinners because of our own actions. Adam and Eve's orginal sin was simply the first evidence that human nature was corrupt.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Fez
There is no evidence that disproves evolution. That is all creationist nonsense. Talkorigins uses the facts when it makes statements about the reality of things. Evolution is a fact. That is infallible. Creationism is not.

You sure are close minded and absolute about it. Be careful, you are almost starting to sound like a "religious fundamentalist".

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by The diplomat


You sure are close minded and absolute about it. Be careful, you are almost starting to sound like a "religious fundamentalist".

If I have to close minded about the facts of evolution then so be it. That is how it is.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Not really. The talkorigins site constantly distorts evidence to make it fit evolution, misrepresents creationism, and ignores evidence that disproves evolution.

Oh? Prove it. This sounds like typical Creationist BS. Are you just repeating creationist claims that you've read on the web?

Cite examples where they distort evidence.

Cite their misreprestentations of creationism (you'll note the focus of the site is providing evidence for evolution, not really talking about creationims).

Cite what evidence you have that disproves evolution. This would be of particular interest to the entire scientific community, because as of yet there has never been any evidence that contradicts the facts of evolution.

I love when people who have no clue as to what science is about just dismiss what the scientific community has acknowledged as fact for decades. Tell me, is it a conspiracy of evil atheists that are keeping the scientists under evolutions nefarious grip, or are they all just stupid about science, even though they've devoted their lives to studying it and you haven't?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
You sure are close minded and absolute about it. Be careful, you are almost starting to sound like a "religious fundamentalist".

Yet you've made a baseless assertion and not backed up your evidence. I'm waiting for you to refute the material in those links. Rather than address the evidence presented, you've just waved your hand and dismissed it without further cause.

I think you need to look in the mirror to see someone who is closed-minded.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Cite what evidence you have that disproves evolution. This would be of particular interest to the entire scientific community, because as of yet there has never been any evidence that contradicts the facts of evolution.

proof against human evolution

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid5.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid6.htm

logical inconsistencies in natural selection

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid8.htm

Geological record

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid9.htm

Evidence supporting creationism (Note that they are all peer reviewed scientific papers)

http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm

http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r02.htm

http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r03.htm

http://www.icr.org/research/as/platetectonics.html

http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonics.htm

http://www.icr.org/research/jb/runawaysubduction.htm

http://www.icr.org/research/as/as-r01.htm

http://www.icr.org/research/as/uthpbdating.html

http://www.icr.org/research/as/regionalmetamorphism.html

http://www.icr.org/research/as/igneousbodies.html

http://www.icr.org/research/lv/lv-r02.htm

Tell me, is it a conspiracy of evil atheists that are keeping the scientists under evolutions nefarious grip, or are they all just stupid about science, even though they've devoted their lives to studying it and you haven't?

There is no conspiracy. Most scientists just don't really have a choice since evolution is the only secular theory possible.