How can you not believe in evolution? Also ideas on Genesis

hephzibah,

Thanks for being honest about your thinking. My only advice is that you should avoid extremes. One extreme is hostility towards science. The other would be hostility towards religion. In my opinion, science and religion both have value. Religion searches for "absolute truths". Science searches for limited, technical truths about how the natural world operates.

Don't you think it is ridiculous to argue with people about evolution if you don't even know what you think it is? Being wrong is one thing--we're all wrong about stuff--but refusing to even define it for yourself is outrageous--when you are arguing with others about what it is.

Don't you think so? Not wanting to attack you--but, trying to show this conversation to you through my eyes.

Religion shouldn't make anyone afraid of facts.

It's easy to not believe something that you think is a load of crap. Just ask all the "non-christians" that post here.

Seriously... I know I don't have a lot of knowledge about it. *shrugs* I know what I was taught in school though. Obviously THAT'S changed quite a bit in the last 17 to 20 years. However... Of course I can question if it's true or not. It's not one bit different than some of the "non-christians" who question religion having never stepped foot in a church or opened a bible, to actually READ it as something more that a story.

People tend to shape their personal "theory's" based on what other people tell them is right whether anyone wants to admit that or not. But who are we in the ultimate scheme of things? Are we really anything more than a speck of dust... here today gone tomorrow? WHO are we? No matter what theory you believe we are still nothing.

If evolution... well eventually we'll evolve into something else and what we are now will be forgotten.

If religion... well the God that created us will come back, do all the things He said He would, and this life we live now will become non-existent.

So what's the point then? Really...

Second of all at no point have I "dismissed" anything. Just because I say I think it's a load of crap doesn't mean I'm not willing to hear anything about it. I just may not agree in the end. But who knows... I could...

If I have questions about it I'll ask and even consider what I'm told... Maybe even do some research of my own if I'm THAT interested.

My point Eorl is that it takes a measure of faith to believe ANY of the theories out there. There is no single theory or idea that mankind has come up with that can absolutely prove everything beyond the shadow of a doubt.

A comment on a free forum:

It is curious that you argue so much about an issue, which you expend so much energy refusing to get any information about.

Why do you refuse to even say what you think evolution is?

I think it's when a living organism alters over time to adapt to its environment. That's probably not a complete defintion--it's just my basic idea.

Do you agree or disagree with that definition, based on what you think right now?

Heph.

You seem to think I'm attacking your lack of knowledge. I'm not. I'm merely trying to get you--a person who expends a great deal of energy discussing and arguing about evolution --to once and for all give a simple sentence describing WHAT you think evolution is.

I'm not looking for a right answer or a wrong answer--but just whatever answer you have floating around in your head.

Your refusal to give the simplest answer is a very transparent dodge of the issue.

I can't believe you think I'll answer any question of yours as long as you continue to refuse to answer a question central to this thread and the discussion of evolution. I likely don't know a whole lot more about evolution than you do--but I do know what comes to mind when I hear the word--and so do you.

You write reams of bs avoiding the issue.

How do you justify clogging up the thread with your non-responses and waffling when you won't even take a stab at sharing your own opinion of the definition?

When someone says "evolution" what do you think they mean? You DO know the answer to that.

What are you afraid of?

Your welcome. Thank you for understanding.

Yes, I can agree that evolution of at least some organisms has been proven, right.

Nope. Not too bad at all.

I'm glad we can and are willing to move past what happened before.

For the moment I have to go. But I would like to continue this with you at some point over the next few days. Though I'm getting into the hectic part of my schedule starting tomorrow and won't be back around again until the end of the week probably. Working three jobs is much more exhausting than I imagined it would be. I'm not a spring chicken anymore that is for sure! I'll try to catch up again as soon as I can though.

Thanks.

Jason, arrogance does not become you. :wink:

You have got to be one of the most arrogant people I have ever met.

How would you know if I wouldn't understand what "logical," "physical," nor "evidence" are that would satisfiy any of my criteria?

You haven't given me any.

And furthermore how do you know what my criteria is?

You are all about making assumptions without justifying anything you say.

You just lay it out there...

BLAH.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...


Pretty soon that's all I'm going to hear when you talk if you keep it up mister.

It takes the brain of a chimpanzee to evolve into a human being's huh? Well at least you explained why you're in your current position finally.


BWAAAAAAA HAHAHA!

Gotcha. :wink:

Since you would not understand what "proof" nor "evidence" is, I'll show you…this comment is evidence of you inability to have understood the theory of evolution back in school. I don't need to assume that….you just proved it.

Errrr... apparently you aren't yet skilled in realizing when someone is being sarcastic with you.

You need to work on that buddy ol pal. You dish it out pretty well though. I gotta hand it to you.

You're lucky I like you Jason. Otherwise I'd have to kick your butt right about now.

hephzibah wrote:

Your welcome. Thank you for understanding.

Yes, I can agree that evolution of at least some organisms has been proven, right.

Nope. Not too bad at all.

I'm glad we can and are willing to move past what happened before.

For the moment I have to go. But I would like to continue this with you at some point over the next few days. Though I'm getting into the hectic part of my schedule starting tomorrow and won't be back around again until the end of the week probably. Working three jobs is much more exhausting than I imagined it would be. I'm not a spring chicken anymore that is for sure! I'll try to catch up again as soon as I can though.

Thanks.

Hey Heph,
I just noticed your sig line. I first heard that quote when I saw the movie "Akeelah and the Bee", about a little girl who wins the national spelling bee after being mentored and inspired by a great teacher. I didn't even know who Marianne Williamson was- I think they actually gave credit to Nelson Mandela for the quote in the movie.

But its a marvelous quote.

Congratulations on the jobs!

hephzibah wrote:

Jason, arrogance does not become you. :wink:

…

hephzibah wrote:

You have got to be one of the most arrogant people I have ever met.

I was expecting to be the most arrogant person you ever met…am I only one of the most arrogant people…?

hephzibah wrote:

How would you know if I wouldn't understand what "logical," "physical," nor "evidence" are that would satisfiy any of my criteria?

You're giving me proof that you don't understand the theory of evolution, much less understand a more profound argument…you don't accept anything as evidence unless it is linked to the paranormal.

hephzibah wrote:

You haven't given me any.

If you understood the theory of evolution, I didn't have to "give you any"…

hephzibah wrote:

And furthermore how do you know what my criteria is?

I don't know what your criteria is…that's why I said, that nothing that seems logical is meeting your criteria…thus my comment.

hephzibah wrote:

You are all about making assumptions without justifying anything you say.

Am I…? So, you're telling me that what I've said so far about you ain't the truth?

hephzibah wrote:

You just lay it out there...

Whatever…

hephzibah wrote:

BLAH.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...


Pretty soon that's all I'm going to hear when you talk if you keep it up mister.

That's exactly what I'm hearing from you now…it's a little bit difficult to decipher such complex language…

hephzibah wrote:

It takes the brain of a chimpanzee to evolve into a human being's huh? Well at least you explained why you're in your current position finally.


BWAAAAAAA HAHAHA!

Is this supposed to be a punch line?

hephzibah wrote:

Gotcha. :wink:

Since you would not understand what "proof" nor "evidence" is, I'll show you…this comment is evidence of you inability to have understood the theory of evolution back in school. I don't need to assume that….you just proved it.

hephzibah wrote:

Errrr... apparently you aren't yet skilled in realizing when someone is being sarcastic with you.

I try to not to assume anything when it comes to discussing the supernatural with people of the Bible.

hephzibah wrote:

You need to work on that buddy ol pal. You dish it out pretty well though. I gotta hand it to you.

What?

hephzibah wrote:

You're lucky I like you Jason. Otherwise I'd have to kick your butt right about now.

Kick whose butt? I try to cure you from your mental disease…and that's what I get in return…violence? Violence does not become you…oh, wait…

Lovely.

Can some one tell me what's going on?

The gist of the concept is that small, random, heritable differences among individuals result in survival and reproduction?-success for some, death without offspring for others?-and that this natural culling leads to significant changes in shape, size, strength, armament, color, biochemistry, and behavior among the descendants. Excess population growth drives the competitive struggle. Because less successful competitors produce fewer surviving offspring, the useless or negative variations tend to disappear, whereas the useful variations tend to be perpetuated and gradually magnified throughout a population.

So much for one part of the evolutionary process, known as anagenesis, during which a single species is transformed. But there's also a second part, known as speciation. Genetic changes sometimes accumulate within an isolated segment of a species, but not throughout the whole, as that isolated population adapts to its local conditions. Gradually it goes its own way, seizing a new ecological niche. At a certain point it becomes irreversibly distinct?-that is, so different that its members can't interbreed with the rest. Two species now exist where formerly there was one. Darwin called that splitting-and-specializing phenomenon the "principle of divergence." It was an important part of his theory, explaining the overall diversity of life as well as the adaptation of individual species.

The evidence, as he presented it, mostly fell within four categories: biogeography, paleontology, embryology, and morphology. Biogeography is the study of the geographical distribution of living creatures?-that is, which species inhabit which parts of the planet and why. Paleontology investigates extinct life-forms, as revealed in the fossil record. Embryology examines the revealing stages of development (echoing earlier stages of evolutionary history) that embryos pass through before birth or hatching; at a stretch, embryology also concerns the immature forms of animals that metamorphose, such as the larvae of insects. Morphology is the science of anatomical shape and design. Darwin devoted sizable sections of The Origin of Species to these categories.

Biogeography, for instance, offered a great pageant of peculiar facts and patterns. Anyone who considers the biogeographical data, Darwin wrote, must be struck by the mysterious clustering pattern among what he called "closely allied" species?-that is, similar creatures sharing roughly the same body plan. Such closely allied species tend to be found on the same continent (several species of zebras in Africa) or within the same group of oceanic islands (dozens of species of honeycreepers in Hawaii, 13 species of Galápagos finch), despite their species-by-species preferences for different habitats, food sources, or conditions of climate. Adjacent areas of South America, Darwin noted, are occupied by two similar species of large, flightless birds (the rheas, Rhea americana and Pterocnemia pennata), not by ostriches as in Africa or emus as in Australia. South America also has agoutis and viscachas (small rodents) in terrestrial habitats, plus coypus and capybaras in the wetlands, not?-as Darwin wrote?-hares and rabbits in terrestrial habitats or beavers and muskrats in the wetlands. During his own youthful visit to the Galápagos, aboard the survey ship Beagle, Darwin himself had discovered three very similar forms of mockingbird, each on a different island.

Why should "closely allied" species inhabit neighboring patches of habitat? And why should similar habitat on different continents be occupied by species that aren't so closely allied? "We see in these facts some deep organic bond, prevailing throughout space and time," Darwin wrote. "This bond, on my theory, is simply inheritance." Similar species occur nearby in space because they have descended from common ancestors.

Paleontology reveals a similar clustering pattern in the dimension of time. The vertical column of geologic strata, laid down by sedimentary processes over the eons, lightly peppered with fossils, represents a tangible record showing which species lived when. Less ancient layers of rock lie atop more ancient ones (except where geologic forces have tipped or shuffled them), and likewise with the animal and plant fossils that the strata contain. What Darwin noticed about this record is that closely allied species tend to be found adjacent to one another in successive strata. One species endures for millions of years and then makes its last appearance in, say, the middle Eocene epoch; just above, a similar but not identical species replaces it. In North America, for example, a vaguely horselike creature known as Hyracotherium was succeeded by Orohippus, then Epihippus, then Mesohippus, which in turn were succeeded by a variety of horsey American critters. Some of them even galloped across the Bering land bridge into Asia, then onward to Europe and Africa. By five million years ago they had nearly all disappeared, leaving behind Dinohippus, which was succeeded by Equus, the modern genus of horse. Not all these fossil links had been unearthed in Darwin's day, but he captured the essence of the matter anyway. Again, were such sequences just coincidental? No, Darwin argued. Closely allied species succeed one another in time, as well as living nearby in space, because they're related through evolutionary descent.

Embryology too involved patterns that couldn't be explained by coincidence. Why does the embryo of a mammal pass through stages resembling stages of the embryo of a reptile? Why is one of the larval forms of a barnacle, before metamorphosis, so similar to the larval form of a shrimp? Why do the larvae of moths, flies, and beetles resemble one another more than any of them resemble their respective adults? Because, Darwin wrote, "the embryo is the animal in its less modified state" and that state "reveals the structure of its progenitor."

Morphology, his fourth category of evidence, was the "very soul" of natural history, according to Darwin. Even today it's on display in the layout and organization of any zoo. Here are the monkeys, there are the big cats, and in that building are the alligators and crocodiles. Birds in the aviary, fish in the aquarium. Living creatures can be easily sorted into a hierarchy of categories?-not just species but genera, families, orders, whole kingdoms?-based on which anatomical characters they share and which they don't.

All vertebrate animals have backbones. Among vertebrates, birds have feathers, whereas reptiles have scales. Mammals have fur and mammary glands, not feathers or scales. Among mammals, some have pouches in which they nurse their tiny young. Among these species, the marsupials, some have huge rear legs and strong tails by which they go hopping across miles of arid outback; we call them kangaroos. Bring in modern microscopic and molecular evidence, and you can trace the similarities still further back. All plants and fungi, as well as animals, have nuclei within their cells. All living organisms contain DNA and RNA (except some viruses with RNA only), two related forms of information-coding molecules.

Such a pattern of tiered resemblances?-groups of similar species nested within broader groupings, and all descending from a single source?-isn't naturally present among other collections of items. You won't find anything equivalent if you try to categorize rocks, or musical instruments, or jewelry. Why not? Because rock types and styles of jewelry don't reflect unbroken descent from common ancestors. Biological diversity does. The number of shared characteristics between any one species and another indicates how recently those two species have diverged from a shared lineage.

Heph, you are such a fighter. Gotta like that.....

aperson

Jason and heph are discussing the discussion they've been having. That's pretty much it. Evolution kind of went from being debated to just happening.

heph

While arrogance may be unbecoming of mr Proudmore, I'd say that his name definitely becomes his arrogance

No offence intended Jason.

I'm curious btw.
What is the 'official' definition of 'evolution'?

aperson wrote:

Lovely.

Can some one tell me what's going on?

Hephzibah is having fun with your topic but she apologized for hijacking your thread.