Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

If you notice , their entire argument is always based solely at attempts at deconstructing evolutionary theory.

Which of the races in the human family is the most evolved?

If you say 'none', then you obviously don't believe your own theory.

Not to mention the fact that there's no such thing in the science as "most evolved". That's a racist, social concept used to justify some particular group's pretended right to higher status. I'm not surprised at all that real life would use it. Organisms have evolved to utilize their environment better. There's only "evolved", there's no "most evolved". It's not a race to an end point.

RL, the problem we have here is that the bible was not written as a scientific treatise. It was written so those who lived in and were familiar with an agrarian lifestyle could understand how life came about and what was/is the natural order of things.

Most, if not all, of our human problems stem from the explanations of experts who, in providing their unsupported hypotheses, arrogantly usurp the bible's moral authority.

real life,

username answered your disingenuous question. (you can stop laughing)

username wrote:

Not to mention the fact that there's no such thing in the science as "most evolved". That's a racist, social concept used to justify some particular group's pretended right to higher status. I'm not surprised at all that real life would use it. Organisms have evolved to utilize their environment better. There's only "evolved", there's no "most evolved". It's not a race to an end point.

Ros, you've repeatedly told us that differences in genetic makeup and morphology (NO MATTER HOW SMALL), expressed in populations, are evidence of evolution.

Is this what you still believe?

neologist wrote:

RL, the problem we have here is that the bible was not written as a scientific treatise. It was written so those who lived in and were familiar with an agrarian lifestyle could understand how life came about and what was/is the natural order of things.

Most, if not all, of our human problems stem from the explanations of experts who, in providing their unsupported hypotheses, arrogantly usurp the bible's moral authority.

I don't want to derail the question I posed to our resident evolutionary defenders , but to address your comment:

Do you believe the Bible contains any errors in it (scientific or otherwise)?

Quote:

If you notice , their entire argument is always based solely at attempts at deconstructing evolutionary theory.

Funny how evolutionists will put up a thread called Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution[/u]

and then when someone who actually doubts the theory shows up (like myself), suddenly they don't want to talk about it.

I make no qualms about it. I am a doubter when it comes to Big Bang/abiogenesis/evolution.

I don't claim to know how God created the universe. I just don't think it likely that it created itself.

If you are a strict naturalist, you either have to believe in an 'eternal universe' instead of an eternal God, (and then you face the same problem of regression that theists face , i.e. so where did the 'eternal universe' come from?) ------------

-----or you believe the universe 'came into being' at some point, and you face the problem of how did a matter / energy universe appear from zero matter/ energy? ( If you think it didn't , then you believe in an 'eternal universe')

So, for the guys who 'have all the evidence' I asked a question:

Quote:

Which of the races in the human family is the most evolved?

If you say 'none', then you obviously don't believe your own theory.

Nobody seems to want to talk about that either.

Funny, isn't it?

Suit called 'unbiblical behavior'
(The Cincinnati Post, June 20, 2007)

There's a rift in the Garden of Eden.

Answers in Genesis, a creationist group that operates the new Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., is being sued by another group of creationists in Australia, Creation Ministries International.

Creation Ministries filed the lawsuit in the Supreme Court of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, against Answers in Genesis and its president, Ken Ham.

The two groups, which both take the Bible literally, are accusing each other of unbiblical conduct.

Creation Ministries International claims that Answers in Genesis told subscribers of magazines published by Creation Ministries that they were no longer available and switched subscribers to a magazine published by Answers in Genesis.

Clarrie Briese, a former Australian judge who at the request of Creation Ministries investigated the dispute between the two groups, accused Answers in Genesis of "unbiblical, unethical, unlawful behavior."

Answers in Genesis countered that the unbiblical behavior came from Creation Ministries.

The group issued a statement that said litigation "is contrary to the biblical standard for Christians in handling disputes with other Christians."

It even quoted chapter and verse, with the answer not in Genesis, but in Corinthians.

"First Corinthians, chapter 6, verses 1-8, teaches that Christians should not go to civil court against other Christians," Answers in Genesis said in its statement.

"Creation Ministries' interest appears to be more about scoring points by publicizing the conflict, rather than taking a biblical approach to conflict resolution."

Answers in Genesis called Creation Ministries' allegations "baseless and without merit."

"We have been working for more than two years to resolve this matter and have offered independent Christian mediation and binding arbitration through Peacemaker Ministries, a professional, internationally recognized Christian conciliation organization," Answers in Genesis said in its statement.

"At one point, we even volunteered to fly Creation Ministries' entire board here at our expense to discuss the matter in detail in an effort to resolve the conflict."

Answers in Genesis spokesman Mark Looy said the group had nothing more to say about the lawsuit beyond its statement.

Creation Ministries noted in its lawsuit that Ham, a native of Australia, was an employee of Creation Ministries from 1980 to 2004 and had been commissioned to establish similar ministries in the United States.

Answers in Genesis was supposed to distribute Creation Ministries magazines, but, the lawsuit alleges, Answers in Genesis "misled or deceived" subscribers by saying the magazines weren't available and switching subscribers to a magazine published by Answers in Genesis.

Briese, in his investigation of the matter at the request of Creation Ministries, said Answers in Genesis and Ham had caused "massive financial damage" to Creation Ministries.

Creation Ministries said it lost 39,000 magazine subscribers that produced annual gross revenue of $252,000.

The lawsuit seeks a judgment that Answers in Genesis acted improperly, requests an injunction to halt the activity and asks for unspecified financial damages.

It was written so those who lived in and were familiar with an agrarian lifestyle could understand how life came about and what was/is the natural order of things.

neologist wrote:

It was written so those who lived in and were familiar with an agrarian lifestyle could understand how life came about and what was/is the natural order of things.

Where is the updated version for us moderns?

wandeljw wrote:

real life,

My follow up question to ros was:

Quote:

Ros, you've repeatedly told us that differences in genetic makeup and morphology (NO MATTER HOW SMALL), expressed in populations, are evidence of evolution.

Is this what you still believe?

Perhaps you'd like to address it and explain why the races are different if it is NOT due to evolution.

If it is, then which one is more evolved?

Species always have variations. That variation is evidence of evolution. It does NOT mean one is more evolved.

If a species has 6 elements and is defined by a 1 at the beginning and a 6 at the end and if a parent is (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
and 2 offspring are (1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6) and (1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6) there is no way to classify one has having evolved more than the other. They both have changed the same amount but both are still in the species. If an evironmental factor finds it easier to prey on the 3,3 offspring then only the 1,3 will reproduce.

Now you have to multiply that 6 elements by the number of molecules in our DNA. It quickly becomes easy to see how there can be billions of billions of variations but still have the 99.9% the same within a species. What you have defined as "race" is not capable of being used to delineate between human beings.

real life wrote:

Quote:

If you notice , their entire argument is always based solely at attempts at deconstructing evolutionary theory.

Funny how evolutionists will put up a thread called Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution[/u]

and then when someone who actually doubts the theory shows up (like myself), suddenly they don't want to talk about it.

I make no qualms about it. I am a doubter when it comes to Big Bang/abiogenesis/evolution.

I don't claim to know how God created the universe. I just don't think it likely that it created itself.

How the universe was created really has no bearing on evolution.

Quote:

If you are a strict naturalist, you either have to believe in an 'eternal universe' instead of an eternal God, (and then you face the same problem of regression that theists face , i.e. so where did the 'eternal universe' come from?) ------------

-----or you believe the universe 'came into being' at some point, and you face the problem of how did a matter / energy universe appear from zero matter/ energy? ( If you think it didn't , then you believe in an 'eternal universe')

No, you don't have to have either for evolution to exist. It would be like saying you can't drive a car unless you believe or disbelieve the big bang. It might add something to why and how you might think the car got there but it really doesn't matter in order for the car to exist.

Quote:

So, for the guys who 'have all the evidence' I asked a question:

Quote:

Which of the races in the human family is the most evolved?

If you say 'none', then you obviously don't believe your own theory.

Nobody seems to want to talk about that either.

Funny, isn't it?

A rather silly presumption. Really silly since you presume the "races" are somehow genetically different. They aren't.

It is similar to asking which breed of dogs is more evolved or which breed of cows is. Because they have variations doesn't make one "more evolved" nor does it mean one has changed more than the other from its ancestors. It only means they have different traits.

Oh, so that is what you think "evolution implies"?

Evolution doesn't. The concept of "most evolved" is meaningless.

It really would be nice if you'd try to keep up, rl. You're talking Social Darwinism there, and that was debunked and dismissed the best part of a century ago. You're just recycling the same old tired crap. Basically it comes from people who were kind of the inverse of you guys--people who misunderstood evolution trying to apply it, saying something it didn't say. As opposed to people who don't understand evolution and its evidence trying to deny its obvious fit with facts, and saying it says things it doesn't say.It's not a comparative system. There's no ranking.

No "race" is "most evolved". No organism is "most evolved". It's not a comparative system. There's no value scale. It's not even clear what that term would mean.

The only race we're part of is the "human race". We really are all one "race", one species. Humans have less genetic variability than dogs. The so-called "races" are social constructs, not biological ones, based on extraneous non-intrinsic characteristics like skin color, configuration of the skin around the eye, and cultural concepts of beauty ("this kind of nose is much more good-looking than that kind of nose--it obviously means I'm more evolved than you are, because it's a better nose"). The variability within the so-called "races" exceeds the variability between the "races". We can all interbreed. The pairings are all fertile. We're all one species. (And such mixed race kids are often really spectacular, examples of hybrid vigor--look at Halle Berry or Jessica Alba or Tiger Woods).

And it's not clear what "most evolved" is supposed to mean anyway. If you take it to mean best fitted to survive, then we're not very high on the list. The meteor impact that killed most species 65 million years ago, would probably pretty much wipe out human beings and certainly destroy our technological civilization. But cockroaches would do just fine. They lived thru the last one, they can live in polluted and radioactive environments that would kill us. They go everywhere we go and survive there with zero technology. They can breathe stuff that would kill us. We'll be dead and millions of years gone and they'll be crawling along happily over our fossilized bones. To the minimal extent your term has any meaning (and it has no scientific meaning), cockroaches are "most evolved", not us.

Why do you say they have 'variations' or 'different traits', but they aren't 'genetically different' ?

You may consider the genetic differences to be minor, but they are differences. Were they caused by evolution?

Fine, rl, have it your way. Cockroaches are "more evolved" than humans are. They have a few generations a year, and they've been around for millions of years more than we have, so they've had far more time to accumulate variation and adapt to specific environments.

Bacteria are even "more evolved" than cockroaches, because they've been here for at least a billion years and they have generations measured in hours, so they've evolved far more.

So what's your point?

In the science of biology "more evolved" or "most evolved" are meaningless. If you want to try to use them, you're using them in a particular cultural context only, not a scientific one. If you want to apply them to so-called "races", what are your criteria for applying the terms?