A few questions for devout evolutionists..

[jackruff]

Science, the effort of humans to explain the natural world, is a process.  It is far from finished, and what is generally accepted today is subject to revision and/or rejection; it has happened many times already.   Is science effective?  Of course it is.  All of technology is the result of the scientific process.  In teaching science, we should be teaching more of the process - how it works - than of the often-temporary results.  Should we be teaching creation?  Yes, but by those for whom it is part of their religious faith.  For that is what it is; it is not science.  For the record, I am a person of the Christian faith, and, as such, include creation as part of my belief system.  Also, for the record, I am a person educated in the science of physics, holding two graduate degrees, and I taught physics and related subjects at the college level for many years.  I also taught Sunday School for many years.  Is it sometimes difficult to reconcile the two world views involved in those pursuits?  Yes, but much of life is difficult.  That doesn't mean we should quit trying!  (I could comment on the terms "theory" and "fact" as they should properly be used, but I'll leave that for another day.)

[BBF]

.........................
...........................
.............................. the joining of the immortal soul to the body.  .....................
..............................
............................................

This concept is nothing but theory as well.

[subdjoe]

.........................
...........................
.............................. the joining of the immortal soul to the body.  .....................
..............................
............................................

 
This concept is nothing but theory as well.

Which would put it on par with the theories that the anti-religion side wants to be taught exclusively, no?

[SHOOTALL]

Wild still no one ansewered a single question . We can assume they cannot. Christians don't really have concrete evidence either . They have faith in what they believe. Evolution is challenged as much as Religion also . I agree with those who say both can coexist. Heather offered a good point of view in not taking evolution to an extream . Evolution is relative new in the time frame of humans. Suprised no one mentioned space people and greek gods being one . I believe God has his hand in all the changes so I will draw fire from non believers , that's ok .
 If someone could explain where "it" all started then we would know the ansewers. If there was nothing then where did everything come from ? What element was first ?
 To be honest its more important to know where I might go so being Christian suits me better. How I was created and how I evolved from there to now would be a leap of faith in something and for me God rewards faith . Evolution is non rewarding and cold.

[briarpatch]

True science is pure religion. Religion is truth, truth is religion.
God is well aware that man must conquer not only the realm of the BIG (Universe) but also the very small in order to introduce new medicines, materials, elements, biological knowledge, and diverse other functions that will help his children on the earth.
We have within us the innate desire to explore, research and discover new fields that fascinate us.
The problem comes when men seek funds to futher their goals, and to reach them, they lie or deceive.
The problem comes when men seek fame and to receive it, they must lie or deceive.
The problem comes when governments need control and to receive it, they must lie or deceive.
Religion and science have both beat the stuffing out of the truth and left a shell of what should be.
My answers come from the side of religion but I believe in Science in its true form. Not guesses or speculations.
I do not believe a man can dig up a 2 million year old hand bone and pronounce it the missing link or show that it was involved with evolution. The animal that it was attached to left no record of what it was, its ancestry or its progeny.
I have a friend that is an anthropologist. Discussing a subject close to this one, his  statement to me a few years ago was. Anthropology has created more liars than any other subject. He is not at this time working in the field of anthropology.
I cannot prove religion to anyone. That is up to each man or woman to prove/disprove.

If your God is Science or something else. That is up to you.
In the end that which is in charge will take charge. Be it God or Science.

[SHOOTALL]

Both science and religion suffer when man starts to speculate.

[subdjoe]

Wild still no one ansewered a single question . We can assume they cannot.

Can't logically even make that assumption. 

[ironglow]

  Those questions are only a test for the ones who are absolutist.  seeing the leading debaters from the evolution side acting so smug, one is almost compelled to pose the difficult questions.  As I said in an earlier post, neither side is PROVEN empirically, so the debaters on either side should be saying.." This is what my faith tells me"!
  Obviously, since neither is proven beyond doubt.. they are both Matters of faith..and should be referred to as such.
 
 
 Recently one of the "pillars" of science has been proven wrong..discovery channel evn said Einstein fell for and old problem..he had a gap in his theory..so he filled it with his opinion, or "hunch"...
    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/23/faster-than-light-particles-may-be-physics-revolution/
 
   Thus, since we are dealing with the cosmos itself, there is room for error ..as we have just seen above.  NOBODY can PROVE eitrher side of this debate...and since we are both dealing from FAITH, so those questions are poised to take some of the wind out of a few windbags' sails. 
 
   None answered yet ?...

[yellowtail3]

  Those questions are only a test for the ones who are absolutist. 

I guess that might have been a hint. I asked earlier: what qualifies one as a devout evolutionists? One who believes evolution has taken place, that some species have evolved? Adapted? Does that qualify?

[XD40SC]

I taught evolution in my AP bio classes. The more you know about evolution, the more you understand that it happened and continues to happen. The more you learn about evolution, the more you understand it is far more than just chance of mutations. It is too perfect to happen by chance. It had to be guided in some way. So Evolution and Gods hand worked together.

[subdjoe]

 
 Recently one of the "pillars" of science has been proven wrong..discovery channel evn said Einstein fell for and old problem..he had a gap in his theory..so he filled it with his opinion, or "hunch"...
    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/23/faster-than-light-particles-may-be-physics-revolution/
 

Not confirmed yet by anyone else.  If or when one or two more tests can come up with the same results THEN we can say that one of the pillars of physics has been toppled. 

But if it is confirmed, we will see a mad scramble for New Clear Physics and a new cosmology. 

[hillbill]

the science of evolution is just conjecture.we take the evidence we have and make assumptions upon it.as is religion, we take what has been written and make our assumptions upon that.just live and let live, dont argue about it .

[XD40SC]

It is not a conjecture.The Hardy- Weinberg equation proves evolution does exist.  Intra species evolution is easier for some to accept than speciation.

[ironglow]

It is not a conjecture.The Hardy- Weinberg equation proves evolution does exist.  Intra species evolution is easier for some to accept than speciation.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
   So XD;
 
   Saying the theory is "proven"...you sound like one of those "absolutists"..so you MUST have all the answers.. 
 
    Which of those questions will you choose to explain away ?

[billy_56081]

Still only attack on the questions!
 

[subdjoe]

Still only attack on the questions!

Yeah, you keep saying that.


 No one is going to take a shot at answering a bunch of 'gottchya' questions.

And, there has been a lot more than just "attack(s) on the questions, if you have been even bothering to read the posts.  Most have just ignored them completely.  That is hardly an 'attack.'

[XD40SC]

It is not a conjecture.The Hardy- Weinberg equation proves evolution does exist.  Intra species evolution is easier for some to accept than speciation.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
   So XD;
 
   Saying the theory is "proven"...you sound like one of those "absolutists"..so you MUST have all the answers.. 
 
    Which of those questions will you choose to explain away ?

Don't put words in my typing. I'll give you a simple example. A given hillside has almost all red flowers of a given species along with a few white flowers of the exact species as the red. Over a period of time- the hill side becomes covered with more and more white flowers until the number of white flowers greatly outnumbers the number of red flowers.  EVOLUTION has occurred. It's that simple.

[ironglow]

  OK....    

[subdjoe]

This fits here;

[ironglow]

Thanks Joe;
   Proves my point..
      Neither body of faith can empirically prove their point..neither the evolutionists nor the intelligent design people..   Thus, neither one should be psuedo-intellectually smug in their discourse...
 
    BTW: Those are not "gotcha" questions !  If one simply takes the question in  heavy print,leaving out extraneous discussion, the questions appear genuine and should be answerable by one who is truely sure of his/her position, since one must have all the answers to be an "absolutist"..right ?
 
Just consider;
 
1) How did life originate ?
 
2) how could mutations (weaknesses) turn a microbe into a micro biologist ?
 
3) How do "living fossils' remain unchanged over hundreds of billions of years ?
 
4) How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality ?
 
5) Science involves experiments to PROVE a theory.  Why is evolution TAUGHT as operational science ?
 
   Those 5 questions it would seem would be a simple task for anyone, (from either side) who "has all the answers".  If either of us are simply going purely on a learned "faith" it could prove vexing... .   

[SHOOTALL]

so flowers changing due to cross polination is the simple ansewer to how man came from nothing ?

[jackruff]

I'll tackle number five.  The word "theory" is not properly used in science to mean the same thing as in the daily conversation of most people.  A scientific theory is asked to do two things:  explain what is observed and predict what will happen under certain prescribed conditions.  If a theory does this it is useful, not necessarily "true," but useful.  It is then "operational science" to use your words.  No theory is ever "proved" to be "true."  (Only in mathematics is "proof" possible.)  A good example is the theory of classical or Newtonian mechanics.  We know it is not "true"; it doesn't work at all for high-speed electrons and many other things, but for baseballs, bullets, planets, and airplanes it gives answers that are more than acceptable.  It is also much easier to use than relativistic quantum  mechanics, which does work for electrons as well as baseballs.  The same can be said of any other theory.  If it does an acceptable job in the consensus of most, but not necessarily all, scientists, then it is used.   The theory of evolution explains and predicts many things reasonably well and is thus accepted and used by the overwhelming majority of biologists.  It is not necessarily "true," but it is not required to be.

[SHOOTALL]

A theory is a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument. Or better yet an unproven assumption.
Theorem on the other hand is derived from other logic and accepted that it can be proven but has not as of yet.
 Often theory is a bunching of theorems.
So one could assume both religion and science are really baised on faith.

[BUGEYE]

all these theories are confusing me.   God did it and that's my final answer.

[SHOOTALL]

Yes and some are proving how 
 

[reliquary]

Here's how I see it:  "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth."  With that, He created the physical laws that keep them running.  We don't really understand all those laws yet.  Then He created all the living "kinds" of animals (Biblical definition of "kinds") and the natural laws that keep them running.  These natural laws include speciation, natural selection, and evolution within species, as we understand them today.
 
He did not, as I understand it, create primordial goo that evolved into all the living things that have ever been on Earth.  He created dog-like things that have evolved into all the kin-to-dog species that are and have been on Earth. He created humans that have evolved into all the human variations on Earth today.  Environmental pressures (natural selection) have caused dog-like animals to appear...hyenas, Tasmanian wolves, for two examples...but genetic studies show they aren't related to dogs. 
 
Where did the humanoids like the Australopithecines appear from?...I don't know...maybe the same ideas about natural selection?  It appears they're older than humans.  I can't explain that and don't care. 
 
Hard-core evolutionists  have proposed and are trying to prove the primordial goo idea.  I believe God took care of it another way.

[SHOOTALL]

So the 327 fed mag was evolution and the 10 mm mag was creation ?    They both came out of the same industry 

[subdjoe]

As I said before, maybe if all the "clutter" of explanations, secondary questions, and references were not there it could be considered an attempt at open debate.  But with all that extra stuff, which if ignored in an answer would be taken as not fully answering the question, I hold that it is nothing but a piece of polemic "gotcha."

Thanks Joe;
   Proves my point..
      Neither body of faith can empirically prove their point..neither the evolutionists nor the intelligent design people..   Thus, neither one should be psuedo-intellectually smug in their discourse...
 
    BTW: Those are not "gotcha" questions !  If one simply takes the question in  heavy print,leaving out extraneous discussion, the questions appear genuine and should be answerable by one who is truely sure of his/her position, since one must have all the answers to be an "absolutist"..right ?
 
Just consider;
 
1) How did life originate ?
 
2) how could mutations (weaknesses) turn a microbe into a micro biologist ?
 
3) How do "living fossils' remain unchanged over hundreds of billions of years ?
 
4) How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality ?
 
5) Science involves experiments to PROVE a theory.  Why is evolution TAUGHT as operational science ?
 
   Those 5 questions it would seem would be a simple task for anyone, (from either side) who "has all the answers".  If either of us are simply going purely on a learned "faith" it could prove vexing... .   

[subdjoe]

So the 327 fed mag was evolution and the 10 mm mag was creation ?    They both came out of the same industry 

.
Yep!....and it was Good....esp the 327 Fed...
 
..TM7

Feh!

Creation was the .45 ACP.  If it was good enough for John Moses Browning, it's good enough for me.

[XD40SC]

so flowers changing due to cross polination is the simple ansewer to how man came from nothing ?

Exactly -Now you got it. You never heard of the following - " she is a rose among thorns" or "He is such a Pansy a_ _ ",  or " he's a nut.".