Do you believe in evolution?

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Would I would like is for you to provide the evidence that you have repeatedly claimed to have but have failed to present.
You have claimed to have evidence that entire species that have fossil evidence are falsehoods yet when you supply your 'evidence' it is merely a debate about the significance of one finding.
You claimed that Darwin's motive was to find an alternative to God, however when asked for evidence of that you merely showed a quote that showed the man's personal struggle to connect his beliefs with his observations.
What I want is for you to back up your claims or to adjust your claims to reflect what information you truely have.
I dont know how old clown boy is but I think he has his head on straight.
I think some of the items and bits of information he has brought up has caused stumbling blocks for you. I think its very odd how you ignore these things and bring up the fact that he hasnt made good on proving something he claimed in the early parts of this thread. I'm not saying that he shouldnt have to show evidence, yet ignoring newly proposed information sounds sounds like some crap my wife would do in an argument.

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
That is very true, and I mentioned that same fact back when someone mentioned the felon Kent Hovird's offer of $250,000 to anyone who could prove evolution.
I personally would like to think I am open to any information but I feel the information provided should back up the claims being made.
Calling Kent Hovind a felon is much like writing off evolutionary beliefs by saying Darwin refuted his claims late in life. This my friend is hypocritical.

 

[ophiura]

Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
Hey Jerth,
Since you said you have researched much of Darwins work, what do you know about him renouncing his theory on his death bed. I heard about this a few times but recall hearing that it was a false statement. Can you clear this up for me?
I posted an explanation of this many pages ago.
Please research Darwin's understanding of heredity and genetics.
Based on his understanding of heredity, there was a blending of traits. He realized a beneficial trait would be lost quickly in a population. He did not have a mechanism to sustain beneficial traits over generations.
WE NOW DO, BECAUSE WE HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HEREDITY.

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
I seriously hope you're not talking about the Bible, a work of fiction written by men to control and manipulate an ignorant and superstitious populace? Can you prove that God exists? Where does he live? Do you have a picture of him? If He does exist, why are there a variety of religions that make various claims about Him, all of which believe their's to be the only true religion? I really wish God would show up, hold a press conference and set us all straight. Then again, He'd have to actually exist for that to happen...
His press conference should include your eternal damnation... Your mockery is juvenile and uncalled for. If I started bashing muslims for their belief system I dont think that the public, much less the moderators on this site would be very keen on it.

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by ophiura
I posted an explanation of this many pages ago.
Please research Darwin's understanding of heredity and genetics.
Based on his understanding of heredity, there was a blending of traits. He realized a beneficial trait would be lost quickly in a population. He did not have a mechanism to sustain beneficial traits over generations.
WE NOW DO, BECAUSE WE HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HEREDITY.
Thanks Ophiura....

 

[ophiura]

I would agree, rbaldino, that we should be very careful here to not insult other people with this sort of post. I understand the point you are trying to make, but please be sensitive to how you are doing it.
But this is a two way street, as pointed out many pages ago.
Please understand, EVERYONE, that people have different beliefs on this board. Many do not believe in Jesus Christ...and you know what? That is fine...that is not a requirement in the SWF hobby. So pronouncements of "the one true....." etc, etc should be used with caution here. They can be as inflammatory as statements questioning the existence of God.
Remember there is free will...

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by seasalt101
in the beginning there was god, god did not create the earth that day i figure he got bored and wanted something to nurture thus the heavens and the earth and man were created...tobin

We are God's reef tank...

 

[rbaldino]

...I don't see any bashing in my post. When the Bible was written, and later distributed to the masses after the printing press was invented, most people were poorly educated, illiterate, and prone to superstition. Organized religion took advantage of this, i.e. charging people money to get out of purgatory, burning "witches" at the stake, etc.
And btw, those of you who assert that your belief system is the only "true" one are essentially bashing others' beliefs, as Ophiura has already stated. And calling for my "eternal damnation" could be seen as quite inflammatory as well, though I'm not particularly worried about it.

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
I don't see any bashing in my post. When the Bible was written, and later distributed to the masses after the printing press was invented, most people were poorly educated, illiterate, and prone to superstition. Organized religion took advantage of this, i.e. charging people money to get out of purgatory, burning "witches" at the stake, etc.
And btw, those of you who assert that your belief system is the only "true" one are essentially bashing others' beliefs, as Ophiura has already stated. And calling for my "eternal damnation" could be seen as quite inflammatory as well, though I'm not particularly worried about it.
are you saying the bible was written 100 years ago?
and was distributed for illitaerates that couldnt read?
again with the religion = uneducation

 

[clown boy]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
When the Bible was written, and later distributed to the masses after the printing press was invented, most people were poorly educated, illiterate, and prone to superstition. Organized religion took advantage of this, i.e. charging people money to get out of purgatory, burning "witches" at the stake, etc.
You are absolutely correct about this, but this was not the Christians. These were the Roman Catholics under leaders who created rules that weren't ordained by Jesus. No, I have nothing against Catholics, it's just that it was controlled by wicked people for a long time...

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
Actually, man created God. And there's more evidence to support evolution than there is for the existence of God.
That's an interesting point of view... Of course, someone who has a relationship with God might argue that unless you have a relationship with "evolution" you are incorrect.
Belief is God requires faith. Belief in evolution requires faith. Simply saying there is more evidence for one over another is a bit too simplistic for my taste.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
I dont know how old clown boy is but I think he has his head on straight.
I think some of the items and bits of information he has brought up has caused stumbling blocks for you. I think its very odd how you ignore these things and bring up the fact that he hasnt made good on proving something he claimed in the early parts of this thread. I'm not saying that he shouldnt have to show evidence, yet ignoring newly proposed information sounds sounds like some crap my wife would do in an argument.

Age should not be relavent, I believe that if someone claims to have information that they should actually have it. You can believe that I have problems with some of the information provided but I can tell you I do not. The majority of it is the same stuff I learned as a kid going to a christian school, going to seminars about the evils of evolution. So seeing these same arguements used over and over again when they are based on flawed information does not add anything to this conversation. I have attempted to address all the flaws I have seen but since this thread is in its 12th page I am sure I have missed some, although I can guarentee nothing was missed on purpose. I would love nothing more than to come across knowledge that could turn the scientific community on its head, I would love to disprove evolution, not because I believe it is evil or wrong but because I want to find out the truth.
I imagine that if you go back and look at the past few pages you will see that I have been extremely patient with certain people, asking for promised information while still addressing the 'new' information they provided. I write 'new' because the information is not new, it is the same information I heard in grade school that I has been addressed by plenty of people and addressed by myself personally.
Being a skeptic is great, it is really fun. I have no problem with people who look at evolution and say, 'I just don't buy it.' but I take an issue with people who claim to have knowledge of why it is false but when asked they show a complete lack of understanding about what the theory is. At some point I have to make the decision to give up on a person if they are unwilling to admit they are wrong on an issue that is a major building block of the discussion.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
...On to point 2, Mutations do not need to get an edge to an organism to survive. Lets say you have a mutation that changes the gene for the brown pigment in your eyes, this probably won't give you an edge in survival but if you pass this mutated gene along eventually there may be another mutation that changes the shape in a membrane protein that results in a resistence a virus. This resistence will probably give your offspring an edge and over time you could see a change in the population, not only in terms of viral resistence but also in eye color.
That's a huge leap. We're now beginning to blend mutations with traits and genetic code in general.
From a statistical point of view, using your above example, it is far more likely that another mutation would cause blindness.

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
I don't see any bashing in my post. When the Bible was written, and later distributed to the masses after the printing press was invented, most people were poorly educated, illiterate, and prone to superstition. Organized religion took advantage of this, i.e. charging people money to get out of purgatory, burning "witches" at the stake, etc.
And btw, those of you who assert that your belief system is the only "true" one are essentially bashing others' beliefs, as Ophiura has already stated. And calling for my "eternal damnation" could be seen as quite inflammatory as well, though I'm not particularly worried about it.
The thread was on track and educational before you posted. Your comment about poorly educated, illiterate, superstitious people was aimed at bible believers from all walks of life throughout history - including present day.
I dont really appreciate being grouped with judgmental people either... I had no part in, nor did I approve of the issue that Ophiura had problems with.
As far as your damnation is concerned, that is between you and God.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
Calling Kent Hovind a felon is much like writing off evolutionary beliefs by saying Darwin refuted his claims late in life. This my friend is hypocritical.
As I mentioned earlier I do not feel that one man's mistakes should be used to disprove anything.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
That is again completely false. The genetic machinery used to replicate DNA occationally messes up and repeats a sequence, this can result in duplicate genes being formed. Also a virus can insert their DNA into host DNA via use of reverse transcriptase.
And "extra" DNA is responsible for a host of defects, diseases and deformities.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Are you trying to imply that I have claimed to have proof of something and not given the information to back up my claim?
I'm saying exactly what you were saying. That people need to research and know the facts for themselves, on both sides of the "aisle" so to speak.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
That's a huge leap. We're now beginning to blend mutations with traits and genetic code in general.
From a statistical point of view, using your above example, it is far more likely that another mutation would cause blindness.
Sure gene mutations can and do cause blindness. However blindness kind of takes away the competitive edge and therefore it tends to not get passed down much.
Stuff like cystic fibrosis and hemophilia will greatly reduce a person's chance of having offspring and passing on the mutation. I think I have mentioned it before, but just because a mutation is bad for an organism does not prove anything. Things that die, well they die. Things that don't die, well they don't die and have a chance of finding a mate and passing down their genetic information, mutations and all.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
And "extra" DNA is responsible for a host of defects, diseases and deformities.
It is also responsible for life.
I think many people get confused when they talk about evolution and use words like 'better' or 'survival of the fittest' evolution does not say that things get better only that they change and the changes that work stay around and the changes that don't work don't stay around.

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
As I mentioned earlier I do not feel that one man's mistakes should be used to disprove anything.
Thats what I was saying... No worries, I think I misunderstood your post.