Evolution in action.

[Cato]

RR,

I couldn't help but notice you qualified your previous acceptance of evolution with 'because I was told to', yet the same qualification doesn't follow theistic evolution. Much irony in this.

[Arkilogue]

Where did I argue that it's false?  I said it was an interesting example of evolution. Are you projecting what you think I should be saying as a theist?

That's what I was wondering, I wasn't sure whether you were arguing that the article was a falsification of evolution or evidence for it. That's what you get though when your talk about science is incoherent, people have to double take when you actually agree with it.

I'm full of surprises...and I allow you to be too.

[Arkilogue]

That's what I was wondering, I wasn't sure whether you were arguing that the article was a falsification of evolution or evidence for it. That's what you get though when your talk about science is incoherent, people have to double take when you actually agree with it.

I never got enough information out of an Arkilogue quantum-bafflegab post to know whether he disagrees with science or not. It's rather like he raided a textbook for terms, loaded them in a shotgun, and then pulled the trigger.

Stick around...I am.

The only place I disagree with science is in it's ideation of beginning states. I love scientific evidence. My best/favorite subjects in school were physiology, geometry and physics. I'd have no where near the amount of data to throw at my model if I'd been born even 20 years prior. I happen to think science is the most successful religion on the face of the earth since the beginning of history. I go be it's Latin root re ligare' "to bind together, to unify". What has brought the world together and unified our ability to act as one more than modern science?

Faith without works is dead just like assertion without evidence is dead just like science without experimentation is dead.

Sure religion today means "belief in a Deity" but what is belief without practice? Farting in the wind. Thoughts that go no where and do nothing other than occupy internal space, clog it up and obscure clear vision through oneself.

It's more like spaghetti thrown at the ceiling to see what sticks..

The noodles aren't done, I need to cook longer.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Faith without works is dead just like assertion without evidence is dead just like science without experimentation is dead.

Sure religion today means "belief in a Deity" but what is belief without practice? Farting in the wind.

Some prefer to call it Protestantism, but whatever.

[Arkilogue]

Faith without works is dead just like assertion without evidence is dead just like science without experimentation is dead.

Sure religion today means "belief in a Deity" but what is belief without practice? Farting in the wind.

Some prefer to call it Protestantism, but whatever.

I learn something new everyday, thanks!

[ScienceAf]

So, I'm not an evolutionary biologist and also not ashamed to admit my ignorance on the details.  When you say "theistic evolution," does that mean you are in the Baraminology/macro versus micro evolution camp? I apologize if I am oversimplifying your position.  As I said, I am not trained in this particular field of science.

I had to look it up... That is the first time I have heard about Bariminolgy. While I am sure that like anything else; theistic evolution has many different nuances and distinctions within the group, it normally refers to those who believe in theism and many of the ways in which the word evolution is framed.

For me, macroevolution would be the line where I become skeptical, and don't think the claims are very well supported. Granted for a naturalist, who believes that the world and life had a beginning, I do understand where many of the claims are the most reasonable explanation.... I also do not think that evolution is falsifiable under this view.

You become skeptical when macroevultion comes into play?
Good one... you forgot that as a Christian your not really questioning everything. Taking things as you've been told.
But either way.

The only difference between macro and micro evolution is the time span. At least when it was first used.

Man has never popped out of a man ape
Read 2001 a space oddesy, it explains it well.

[ApeNotKillApe]

"Man ape" is redundant.

[Fake Messiah]

I see you guys frequently get in these kind of situation where you show the evidence of evolution to religious people (mostly Christians around here) and you try to explain them and I'm not saying you should stop, but I just want to make you realize what you're standing on.
Yes, the evidence for evolution are everywhere, but when it comes to religious people that don't want to accept them there isn't much point in showing it to them because to them it's on psychological level. For instance take the flat Earth debate in 1866. There was this guy named Parallax that claimed Earth was flat and no other then Alfred Wallace decided to teach him a lesson. So they decided to observe Eddystone Lighthouse from distance for which Parallax claimed would be visible in full and not only the lantern at the top because of the curvature of Earth. On that particular day air refracted so that somewhat less of the lantern was visible (about half) which made Parallax proclaim victory because these heathen globularists claimed whole lantern would be visible.

In other words if they decided to ignore the evidence there is nothing you can do about it. People have reasons to believe the Tooth Fairy created the World instead of it gradually evolving and that persistence of living in the imaginary world frequently comes from tragedies in their lives, like death of close ones, for which asshole religions pray upon and instead of letting these people be mentally healed they provoke them until they're totally insane. So you showing them some evidence won't do anything.

[RoadRunner79]

RR,

I couldn't help but notice you qualified your previous acceptance of evolution with 'because I was told to', yet the same qualification doesn't follow theistic evolution. Much irony in this.

I'm not sure I follow, what you are questioning exactly.

[GUBU]

I had to look it up... That is the first time I have heard about Bariminolgy. While I am sure that like anything else; theistic evolution has many different nuances and distinctions within the group, it  normally refers to those who believe in theism and many of the ways in which the word evolution is framed.  

For me, macroevolution would be the line where I become skeptical, and don't think the claims are very well supported.   Granted for a naturalist, who believes that the world and life had a beginning, I do understand where many of the claims are the most reasonable explanation....  I also do not think that evolution is falsifiable under this view.

You become skeptical when macroevultion comes into play?
Good one... you forgot that as a Christian your not really questioning everything. Taking things as you've been told.
But either way.

The only difference between macro and micro evolution is the time span. At least when it was first used.

Man has never popped out of a man ape
Read 2001 a space oddesy, it explains it well.

The only diiferences between macro and microevolution are whatever made up differences creatards ascribe to those two terms, because they created them in the Great Panda Shift of the late eighties in order to try and put on a scientific veneer and get creatardism taught in schools under intelligent design. Science does no use those terms, as while there are a number of mechanisms driving evolution, evolution itself is a single process.

And I am as skeptical of RRs claims to formerly accept evolution. There are gross mischaracterisations replete throughout RRs postings hers showing the only grounding he got in evolution was from a creatard perspective.