University of Idaho affirms evolution

[#juan]

Nascar_James wrote:

Juan, the theory of evolution does not clearly explain where life originally came from. Could you answer that question? Every species on earth was initially put here by a Divine Being. Those that were not able to adapt to change, have become extinct. We have had some form of micro-evolution (changes in the form of a species over time based on natural selection), however a given species over time does not become a completely new species.

Therefore to answer your question, the fossils we have are the remains of the initial species created by God.

James, every animal, fish, or fowl, or plant, owes it's existance to those first simple, self replicating groups of cells that came from the primordial soup. Every bird, fish, or mammal, or plant, has the same type of double helical strands of DNA. From the earliest amoeba to the first fish with primative lungs that crawled up on the shore. From these beginnings came all plants and animals. Every animal or plant carved it's own niche through evolution and was both dependant on, and needed by the particular ecology they lived in. I don't say this was not God's plan, but I am sure this is the way it happened.

 

[Nascar_James]

Nascar_James wrote:

Juan, the theory of evolution does not clearly explain where life originally came from. Could you answer that question? Every species on earth was initially put here by a Divine Being. Those that were not able to adapt to change, have become extinct. We have had some form of micro-evolution (changes in the form of a species over time based on natural selection), however a given species over time does not become a completely new species.

Therefore to answer your question, the fossils we have are the remains of the initial species created by God.

James, every animal, fish, or fowl, or plant, owes it's existance to those first simple, self replicating groups of cells that came from the primordial soup. Every bird, fish, or mammal, or plant, has the same type of double helical strands of DNA. From the earliest amoeba to the first fish with primative lungs that crawled up on the shore. From these beginnings came all plants and animals. Every animal or plant carved it's own niche through evolution and was both dependant on, and needed by the particular ecology they lived in. I don't say this was not God's plan, but I am sure this is the way it happened.

Any proof of that? Till someone comes up with an answer on how life began without creation by God, I will continue to believe what I have known for years, that every species on earth was put here on this planet by a Divine Being. Life doesn't just originate out of the blue. Someone, a super power had to create this form of life.

 

[Nascar_James]

.. the theory of evolution does not clearly explain where life originally came from.

Aw jeez, here it goes again. That's just another of those red herrings the creationists like to trot out as a criticism of evolutionary theory. Of course it doesn't explain origins, that's not what it's about. It's about what happens to living things once they exist. It says nothing about how life originated, never did, and never will. That's a separate issue, not part of evolutionary theory.

You guys are all the same in this context. You misuse or misinterpret some legitimate science. You get a cogent rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with that, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that the science is weak and uncertain and there's a controversy. Nice trick, works every time, and it's absolutely content-free, it'll work on anything. It's also logically wrong. But that's never stopped any devoted creationist.

Intelligent design explains exactly nothing, it's a total fraud, and the U of Idaho is entirely correct. The church is moving in exactly the wrong direction, away from a reasoned, evidence-based understanding of the world around us, back to mediaeval mysticism and nonsense.

Anybody who wants to know more can find it in the Evolution Debate thread. I don't propose to go through it all again here. But I can summarize it this way: if the Catholic faith is incompatible with the science of evolution, as those links clearly indicate an influential Cardinal has written, the faith is wrong. Science is not a matter of belief. When science and religion come into conflict over empirical claims about the nature of reality, religion has to yield. It's wrong.

Dexter, your arguments are well founded. The best arguments on this thread by far, supporting Darwinian Evolution. I see your point on evolution not being related to "the beginning of life". However, as you are committed to your convictions, so I am. Since I have not seen evidence otherwise, I will continue to believe that life started through Divine Intervention.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: University of Idaho a

I gave you evidence otherwise, James. Look it up. Amino acids. In the lab. Out of nothing.

Your church links are funny. Is the stance of the church going to change with every pope? And they all get their instructions for your god? So your god smokes peyote some days and not others or what?

You can't even decide what your beliefs are, but you know you believe?

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: University of Idaho a

I gave you evidence otherwise, James. Look it up. Amino acids. In the lab. Out of nothing.

Your church links are funny. Is the stance of the church going to change with every pope? And they all get their instructions for your god? So your god smokes peyote some days and not others or what?

You can't even decide what your beliefs are, but you know you believe?

Up till recently, the Catholic Church has been neutral (has stayed on the sidelines) when it comes to evolution. Now it appears it is in the process of finally taking a position. What is wrong with that, Rev? That is clearly not flip-flopping.

 

[Andygal]

he university is wrong to force it's views on evolution onto the student body.

Oh?, and what the heck do you think the religious right is doing by trying to BAN the teaching of evolution in schools, Is THAT not trying to force their beliefs on the student body? Apparently in your mind everything the rational scientific community does is automatically wrong, but when your precious religious right does the exact same thing they are automatically right to do it.

Just another example of the hypocrisy of the religious right.

 

[Martin Le Acadien]

Who, What or How did the Hydrogen Atom get created and where did the building blocks for that come from? Random creation? Cosmic Plan? Aliens?

Wonder about the neutrinos?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Up till recently, the Catholic Church has been neutral (has stayed on the sidelines) when it comes to evolution. Now it appears it is in the process of finally taking a position. What is wrong with that, Rev? That is clearly not flip-flopping.

Actually, the Catholic church accepted that evolution was the scientific explanation. That's not really sitting on the sidelines, it's admitting that it plays a different game.

You want to pretend to be playing the same game. That goes against your church. Now you'll have to quit the church, because that's what you said others will do.

Who, What or How did the Hydrogen Atom get created and where did the building blocks for that come from? Random creation? Cosmic Plan? Aliens?

Not really part of evolution, but if you demand a scientific explanation for that, then you'll have to explain where your god came from.

 

[#juan]

Nascar_James

It is interesting how you demand proof of evolution but have absolutely none for your particular brand of creationism.

 

[Nascar_James]

Up till recently, the Catholic Church has been neutral (has stayed on the sidelines) when it comes to evolution. Now it appears it is in the process of finally taking a position. What is wrong with that, Rev? That is clearly not flip-flopping.

Actually, the Catholic church accepted that evolution was the scientific explanation. That's not really sitting on the sidelines, it's admitting that it plays a different game.

Read the first paragraph Rev. It mentions the Catholic church has been sitting on the sidelines (up till now) regarding the evolution argument...

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Since I have not seen evidence otherwise, I will continue to believe that life started through Divine Intervention.

You haven't seen any evidence to support that position either. It's an assumption that's compatible with your view of the world, but there's no evidence for it.

In a previous post you wrote "the fossils we have are the remains of the initial species created by God." If that's so, we should see a decline in biodiversity over time as various species from the original act of creation disappear, when in fact we see exactly the opposite. Or is god still creating new species out of nothing?

 

[Nascar_James]

Nascar_James

It is interesting how you demand proof of evolution but have absolutely none for your particular brand of creationism.

Sure I do, Juan... the Bible.

Creation in relation to the description of the creation of the heavens and the earth by God, is described in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. See Chapters 1 and 2 of the book of Genesis for details.

 

[Andygal]

RE: University of Idaho a

You have found eveidence for your view of the world in ONE book, that was written some thousand or more years ago (the new testemant by the way was pased down orally for some time before being written down sometime after Jesus was supposed to have lived and died, and oral history is notriously prone to being warped with time, ever played "Telephone/Broken telephone"?

I have a number of different sources for my views, and the sources of my sources are very easy to trace. Evolution has been verified by an enormous number of observations and experiments, while YOUR view has been verified by exactly NO direct evidence.

 

[Nascar_James]

Since I have not seen evidence otherwise, I will continue to believe that life started through Divine Intervention.

You haven't seen any evidence to support that position either. It's an assumption that's compatible with your view of the world, but there's no evidence for it.

In a previous post you wrote "the fossils we have are the remains of the initial species created by God." If that's so, we should see a decline in biodiversity over time as various species from the original act of creation disappear, when in fact we see exactly the opposite. Or is god still creating new species out of nothing?

Well Dexter, I did mention that I supported some form of micro-evolution (changes in the form of a species over time based on natural selection). The stronger species were able to survive and adapt (ex. shark). The weaker ones obviously became extinct (ex. dinosaurs). I do not however believe that new species simply emerged through evolution.

 

[#juan]

Nascar_James

It is interesting how you demand proof of evolution but have absolutely none for your particular brand of creationism.

Sure I do, Juan... the Bible.

Creation in relation to the description of the creation of the heavens and the earth by God, is described in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. See Chapters 1 and 2 of the book of Genesis for details.

Which version James?

You might be amazed at the number of different Bibles out there. You would also find a few quite different wordings in some of them. The problem I have with Genesis is: Who wrote it? Was there a witness to creation? I won't knock anyone's religion until they push it on me as proof. It is not proof James. It is a conglomeration that has been written and translated and put together by men.

 

[Andygal]

RE: University of Idaho a

Nascar, you have yet to respond to either of my posts, did you miss then while reading, or is it that you can't think up a reasonable response?

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: University of Idaho a

You have found eveidence for your view of the world in ONE book, that was written some thousand or more years ago (the new testemant by the way was pased down orally for some time before being written down sometime after Jesus was supposed to have lived and died, and oral history is notriously prone to being warped with time, ever played "Telephone/Broken telephone"?

I have a number of different sources for my views, and the sources of my sources are very easy to trace. Evolution has been verified by an enormous number of observations and experiments, while YOUR view has been verified by exactly NO direct evidence.

I have a source for the creation of life, Andygal. Where are your er ... numerous sources for how life began? I'd be more than pleased to read them.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: University of Idaho a

What source is that, James?

 

[Andygal]

RE: University of Idaho a

First we are not dicussing the origin if life, we are discussing evolution, they are too different theories. However in response to your question, here is a link to information about the Miller-Urey experiment where it was shown that organic molecules, such as amino acids can arise spontaneously in the right conditions.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... I did mention that I supported some form of micro-evolution...

Creation was evidently seriously flawed then, if some of god's creatures weren't able to make it. Not very impressive for a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient deity. Moreover, he must have known they weren't going to make it, so why bother to create them in the first place? And you do have to address the biodiversity issue, which according to the evidence has proceeded in exactly the opposite fashion to what your creationism would predict. A theory that makes incorrect predictions has something wrong with it.

Macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution writ large. On the time scales of geological history, they're the same thing, the distinction is spurious. How old do you think the earth is anyway? 6000 years, as Bishop Ussher calculated? 10,000, as some young earth creationists claim? Or the science based deduction that it's around 5 to 6 billion years old?

The Bible does not constitute proof of divine creation, it simply states it without evidence, and it also contains two quite distinct and inconsistent stories of creation. The claim that the Bible contains the divinely inspired and thus infallible word of god is based on statements within the scriptures themselves. Such self-referential claims are worthless. You can't logically use the Bible itself as evidence that the Bible is true. You'll have to do better than that.