Evolution - Fact or Fiction?

[SteveA]

I've heard arguments against evolution saying that it's like trying to shake all the various components of a mousetrap (a spring, lever, latch, base board etc.) in a bag and make it into a mousetrap.

But evolution says that each of these components individually has alternate uses - a springy mechanism could help something run faster or recycle energy, a latch could be a useful claw or fishhook, the lever a structural component like a bone etc. So no matter how you break things down, there are potential evolutionary uses for each component ... you could even go down to the level of individuals atoms and look at carbon and realize carbon happens to be a very useful building block because it has so many configurations available to it ... the fact that all life we know of is based upon carbon seems to agree with the view that evolution has taken the path of 'least resistance' in creating things. If we'd been engineered by a perfect intelligence, why use calcium and not some strong lightweight material like titanium for bones? And why all the imperfections? Evolution tends to take advantage of imperfections - they're the power behind it. Without diversity, evolution is a useless tool. It seems easy to imagine that God could have created the universe as an evolutionary process. Why not?

[Jack]

I direct you to read The Starlight and Time, by Dr. Humphreys

I wish I had time to read every crackpot theory out there to find the holes in it myself, but I don't. Someday perhaps. I did however run across this:

In 1994 a physicist who is prominent in the young-earth movement, Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, unveiled a proposed alternative cosmology which, it was claimed, resolved a long-standing problem for the young-earth movement --- how light could travel billions of light years from distant galaxies during the passage of only a few thousand years of Earth time. This new cosmology was widely hailed in the young-earth movement and has been widely distributed in book form. The author, Dr. Humphreys, is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory, and his initial article and book acknowledged the tentative character and possible falsity of the new proposal. He also solicited, publicly and privately, feedback from Christian physicists who did have formal training in these disciplines. Starting even before the appearance of Starlight and Time and continuing to the present, such feedback has been forthcoming, and, to our knowledge, it has been uniformly critical of the theory. In fact, Starlight and Time and related writings by Humphreys exhibit profound misunderstandings of relativity theory and cosmology. Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed. It is very unfortunate that these writings have been so widely distributed in the young-earth community and have misled so many Christians. Before proceeding with our discussion of the present state of the Starlight and Time hypothesis, we wish to make it clear that our observations about Dr. Humphreys' cosmological writings are not intended to cast aspersion on the sincerity of his Christian faith or the quality of his Christian testimony. The errors and defects in Humphreys' ideas are not moral errors, but scientific ones, and our pointing out of Humphreys' errors in these scientific areas does not imply criticism of his moral integrity. The one moral criticism which we would make of Dr. Humphreys' advocacy of his model, is his failure to heed the counsel of skilled Christian physicists in this matter. This is not a small criticism, for Humphreys' overconfidence in this matter has led to the widespread dissemination of a false theory. The inevitable collapse of this theory may damage the faith of many Christians who have leaned on it to reinforce their faith. The responsibility for such damage will rest with Dr. Humphreys and those of his associates who have promoted his theory, disregarding the expert counsel which God has made available to them. It is also possible that the widespread distribution and acceptance of his theory will have negative consequences for the credibility of Christian testimony to unbelievers. Again, responsibility for this will lie with Dr. Humphreys and his associates.

Perhaps we both should do some more reading.

[madprophet]

Quote by: strawberijam518 To truly understand any scientific theory, you must understand the controversial theories opposing it. Just because I think the world was created 10,000 years ago has nothing to do with my understanding of evolution.

Once again, you are trying to pass off a religious belief as a scientific theory. The whole concept of creation "science" is based on faith. FAITH. You cannot falsify faith. Simply put, you can't disprove the existence of god.

And since you asked nicely, how about some biblical references for the flat earth:

"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it" (Job 38:12-13)

Obviously, a sphere has no edges.

"[T]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" (Matthew 4:1-12)

You can't see the opposite side of a sphere, even from the tallest mountain. And there's a bunch that talk about the corners of the earth and the end(s) of the world and such.

And how about geocentricism:

The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (Psalm 93:1)

"Cannot" implies "does not," obviously, thus celestial bodies must move around the earth.

…the sun rises and the sun sets; and hastening to its place, it rises there again. (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

It's the sun that moves around the earth.

Y'know, if you've never heard any of this before, I have to assume you're as ignorant about creationism as you are about modern science. After all, I got these from creationist websites.

[RickSp]

The "God creating the universe with light in mid travel so that it only looks likes the universe is 14 billion years old but is really only 10,000 years" is without question my favorite absurdity thrown out by the Young Earthers. Why it appears that God set out to intentionally fool everyone isn't clear, but to the faithful it doesn't have to be. It demonstrates how bizarre things become when the creationists have to twist everything around them to fit into their rigid reading of the Bible.

If you look at the explanation at face value, it is complete nonsense, but if you have faith and refuse to see anything else, then I guess it sort of makes sense.

[Matt W]

All because the originator can't be arsed to read other threads.

*sighs*

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: RickSp The "God creating the universe with light in mid travel so that it only looks likes the universe is 14 billion years old but is really only 10,000 years" is without question my favorite absurdity thrown out by the Young Earthers. Why it appears that God set out to intentionally fool everyone isn't clear, but to the faithful it doesn't have to be. It demonstrates how bizarre things become when the creationists have to twist everything around them to fit into their rigid reading of the Bible. If you look at the explanation at face value, it is complete nonsense, but if you have faith and refuse to see anything else, then I guess it sort of makes sense.

I am not arguing for the creationists, but I think there is a misunderstanding here about this.


Could it be that they were just not created at the same time, giving light the necesarry time to traverse the distance?


Intentional, or not, I think it is rediculous to assume that eveything in the universe should be the same age. Matter is created, ages, and dies, just like the rest of us.


Why is it silly to think that the Earth, and the stars (that bring about this apparent conflict) do not have to be of uniform age?


I thought we knew that the Earth was created out of the remains of long dead stars. Didn't this time need to be factored into the equation?

[grandpa]

Quote by: SteveA I've heard arguments against evolution saying that it's like trying to shake all the various components of a mousetrap (a spring, lever, latch, base board etc.) in a bag and make it into a mousetrap. But evolution says that each of these components individually has alternate uses - a springy mechanism could help something run faster or recycle energy, a latch could be a useful claw or fishhook, the lever a structural component like a bone etc.

Also, mousetraps are created by human beings. Their components used to be something else, just like a wound on one's finger used to be open until it healed. I personally see actual physical healing as micro-evolution. I have no reason to believe divine intervention happens every time someone gets a papercut.

Another thing: Why do people in higher elevations tend to have greater lung capacity?

Grandpa h.

[Jack]

Matter is created, ages, and dies, just like the rest of us.

Matter changes form or states, but dies?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Could it be that they were just not created at the same time, giving light the necesarry time to traverse the distance?

If the universe itself is less than 10,000 years old, as the creationists claim, then the observed universe must be very small because even the most distant stars cannot be farther than 10,000 light years away. The light from stars farther away would not have reached us yet.

This doesn't agree with celestial observations so the creationists have to squeeze the observed universe into their dogma. One answer is to make the speed of light variable. Another is to have God create the universe at its observed size and have the light from the stars be created in transit, so we can indeed see stars farther away than 10,000 light years.

Either way it is a stretch to make what is observed agree with a literal reading of the Bible.

[madprophet]

I think what Milton meant was that things that are made of matter are formed, age and then die. Like our solar system, for instance, and not the atoms themselves.

It still doesn't work, because even the matter we're standing on is much older than 10,000 years. (Oh, plus there's that thing about the earth being created first and the heavens coming a couple days later.)

[strawberijam518]

Food for thought...

Special note to the people who think there is a large difference between scientific theory and religion...

---------------------------------
Begin with the earth and a few inert ingredients (compliments of a fortunate big bang), add oceans of water (also complimentary), add time (billions of years), add faith (quantum leaps) stirred by the omniscient hand of Natural Selection and the recipe for the first “simple cell” is complete.

Allowed a few more billion years of random coincidence and sequential mutation the single cell becomes a sophisticated amphibian, perhaps a frog. Billions more years and amphibians become complex humans.

Still some simpletons observe man’s complexity and design and attribute it to an intelligent designer.

Federal Judge John Jones decided that Intelligent Design was not really science, at least not in the public schools of Dover, PA. He dismissed the testimony of credible microbiologists Michael Behe, Scott Minnich and others as worthless. After all, they admitted that Intelligent Design presumed an Intelligent Designer. Smart judges know that if God has anything to do with it, it’s not science and Jones didn’t hesitate to say so frequently in his long-winded 139-page ruling.

Jones relied on ”scientists” and “credible free thinkers” like the ACLU, Dr. Barbara Forrest, Professor of Philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, and others. Visit Fayard Hall on the SLU campus and notice the flyers advertising Forrest’s Philosophy 314 class, “Evolution – It’s History & Principles**.” The double asterisk note reads, “** This course will not debate the status of evolutionary theory. Evolution is the only established scientific explanation of the history of life on earth. The course will be based on acceptance of this explanation.” Forrest knows how difficult it is to rationally sell evolution. It’s easier to demand lock-step acceptance.

In effect, Jones determines that belief in designed humans is belief in a religious fairy tale. On the contrary, belief there was once a frog who after a few billion years of evolution became a handsome prince constitutes irrefutable science.

Neither ID nor Evolution can be proven or repeated in a laboratory environment. Both require faith to accept. Jones builds a “Wall of Protection” around evolution insuring that it remains the only federally mandated and federally funded religion taught in the nation’s public schools, allowing Evolution to proclaim, “Thou shall have no other theories before me!”

This case is not a matter of whether religion will be taught, rather whose religion will be taught. Somehow Jones failed to mention that Forrest has strong religious motives of her own. As reported by David Klinghoffer in National Review, “Professor Forrest has definite beliefs about religion, evident from the fact that she serves on the board of directors of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, which is ‘an affiliate of American Atheists, and [a] member of the Atheist Alliance International,’ according to the group’s website.”
------------------------------

A letter written to a local editor of a newspaper by a friend of mine.

enjoy.

-Maddie

[tman_ndsu08]

Here's a question I have about evolution. How is it possible that humans will evolve further when every human is now expected to reproduce regardless?

For example, say a goal of human evolution is to get rid of wisdom teeth.

According to evolution, someone would have to randonly be born with a mutation in their genes that caused them not to have wisdom teeth. And this mutation would have to be able to be passed down to the next generation.

Then there would have to be some environmental reason that a person without wisdom teeth would have a much greater chance of reproducing than those with them.


But everyone with any type of gene set, save only the very extreme (like Downs syndrome, etc.) are simply expected to reproduce.


How can we evolve further without eugenics which are obviously against modern ethics?