Check out the Wikipedia article on evolution!

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Post Reply
krynn9000
Familiar Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:38 pm
Christian: No
Location: Columbus OH
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Check out the Wikipedia article on evolution!

#1

Post by krynn9000 » Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:29 pm

Hey guys, I am really starting to love this forum. You have no idea how much it has helped my faith. I'll keep you up to date on my love interests too, if you've read my other posts!

Anyway, should all take a look at the wikipedia article on evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution# ... _evolution

What do you think of their evidences in favor of evolution occurring? I am still skeptical although they treat this macroevolution as if it were a sure thing.

Thanks!

Zenith
Established Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:54 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#2

Post by Zenith » Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:51 pm

you wouldn't talk about the life and death of jesus christ as if it were a theory now would you? but can you prove to other people that jesus existed? its called faith, no matter what you have faith in. christians have faith in god, scientists have faith in other scientists and their perception.

the unsaid thing conveyed in conversation is that most of what we believe is taken for granted. people don't often like to use a lot of time or words to say something so idioms and metaphors and [understood] assumptions are used.

Jay_7
Established Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:27 am
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#3

Post by Jay_7 » Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:40 pm

Actually theres alot of historical evidence Jesus existed.

IRQ Conflict
Senior Member
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:01 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: AB. Canada
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#4

Post by IRQ Conflict » Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:02 pm

I am really starting to love this forum. You have no idea how much it has helped my faith.
:D

Now, thats what we be talkin bout! I'm glad to hear it!

Sum reeson da spelchecker wants to highlite all ma werdz ;)
Hellfire

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1Ti 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#5

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:57 am

IRQ Conflict wrote:
I am really starting to love this forum. You have no idea how much it has helped my faith.
:D

Now, thats what we be talkin bout! I'm glad to hear it!

Sum reeson da spelchecker wants to highlite all ma werdz ;)
=)

.nekorb si rekehc lleps ym, kniht I
)=
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Zenith
Established Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:54 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#6

Post by Zenith » Tue Feb 07, 2006 4:27 pm

Jay_7 wrote:Actually theres alot of historical evidence Jesus existed.
i wasn't discrediting that; there's a lot of evidence that evolution occured too.

krynn9000
Familiar Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:38 pm
Christian: No
Location: Columbus OH
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Uhhh

#7

Post by krynn9000 » Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:52 pm

Would anyone like to comment on my actual question?

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

Re: Uhhh

#8

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:05 pm

krynn9000 wrote:Would anyone like to comment on my actual question?
Sure do you have any specific questions regarding the empirical evidence for evolution?

Ask me via PM as this board is not intended to discuss the merits of evolution. The board is here to harmonize science with christianity.

You can also speak with Kurieuo or August on this matter.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#9

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:24 pm

Zenith wrote:
Jay_7 wrote:Actually theres alot of historical evidence Jesus existed.
i wasn't discrediting that; there's a lot of evidence that evolution occured too.
The difference is that it is difficult to nearly impossible to conduct experients related to a specific event or individual.

Glad you're still around Zenith, I was thinking that KMart frustrated you into leaving.

lol
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

IRQ Conflict
Senior Member
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:01 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: AB. Canada
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#10

Post by IRQ Conflict » Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:19 am

Ask me via PM as this board is not intended to discuss the merits of evolution.


Were not allowed to discus positive evidence of evolution here? Hmm, I'd love some info bgood. I don't believe evolution as such but would love to know what evolutionists or science believes is the strongest case they have and in what discipline.
Hellfire

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1Ti 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain

Zenith
Established Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:54 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#11

Post by Zenith » Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:42 am

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Zenith wrote:
Jay_7 wrote:Actually theres alot of historical evidence Jesus existed.
i wasn't discrediting that; there's a lot of evidence that evolution occured too.
The difference is that it is difficult to nearly impossible to conduct experients related to a specific event or individual.

Glad you're still around Zenith, I was thinking that KMart frustrated you into leaving.

lol
heh, almost. i've been taking more time lately to work on school.

and yeah, there are some major differences between the evidence for the two.
IRQ Conflict wrote:
Ask me via PM as this board is not intended to discuss the merits of evolution.


Were not allowed to discus positive evidence of evolution here? Hmm, I'd love some info bgood. I don't believe evolution as such but would love to know what evolutionists or science believes is the strongest case they have and in what discipline.
i would wager genetics as being the strongest case for evolution, but you really can't look at it through one discipline. genetics shows that each individual has different genes from the next, and that an individual's genes are simply recombinations of the parents' genes with a few possible errors resulting in what we call mutation. this much is proven to be true. what is theory is that over time, these small changes add up, creating variety and speciation. for this not to happen, there would have to be something that limits the amount of change in dna such that genes cannot change in a way that seperates them from the species.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#12

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:10 am

IRQ Conflict wrote:
Ask me via PM as this board is not intended to discuss the merits of evolution.


Were not allowed to discus positive evidence of evolution here? Hmm, I'd love some info bgood. I don't believe evolution as such but would love to know what evolutionists or science believes is the strongest case they have and in what discipline.
I never said we were not allowed to discuss it.

What I did mean is that I am not here to espouse the theory. I am only here to clear up any misconceptions and confusion regarding science in general.

What one chooses to believe is up to the individual.

Regarding the PM, it is a much better format for discussing specific issues, as in the forums a discussion tends to get muddled up with general attacks on evolution and unecessary cluter in the form of additional misconceptions, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Wall-dog
Established Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 8:18 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#13

Post by Wall-dog » Wed Feb 08, 2006 5:55 pm

BeGood,

Historians have a whole slew of criteria they use to judge the historical accuracy of a book or story. They look at all kinds of things. They look at other historical references from the same time period and the numbers of things other records verify or bring into question. If 99.99% of the things mentioned in other references verify what a book says, that book would be more credible than if only 10% of the same events in other reference materials gave a similar account. They look at the amount of time between an event occurring (or person living) and the time the record of that person was written down. The idea here I guess is that the closer to an actual event a record is written, the easier it is to verify that record based on surviving witnesses and whatever actual evidence may be on hand. Things like that. Fasciniting stuff - though not the kind of research I'd like to do myself. :)

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#14

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:11 pm

Wall-dog wrote:BeGood,

Historians have a whole slew of criteria they use to judge the historical accuracy of a book or story. They look at all kinds of things. They look at other historical references from the same time period and the numbers of things other records verify or bring into question. If 99.99% of the things mentioned in other references verify what a book says, that book would be more credible than if only 10% of the same events in other reference materials gave a similar account. They look at the amount of time between an event occurring (or person living) and the time the record of that person was written down. The idea here I guess is that the closer to an actual event a record is written, the easier it is to verify that record based on surviving witnesses and whatever actual evidence may be on hand. Things like that. Fasciniting stuff - though not the kind of research I'd like to do myself. :)
Yes the available evidence for historians is far more explicit than it is for natural sciences.

However the evidence available for historians is to some extent also more subjective. For example historical documents in the form of accounts of past societies in later societies, and documents from the society in question themselves.

Events are more difficult to pin down and verify.
Due to the inexact nature of historical studies, we have learned that we cannot discount anything.

Historians can use archaelogy and forensic sciences to validify a claim as well as cross referencing sources.

However scientific testing is in large part unavailable to them. Archaelogy is able to do limited testing on the various atrifacts related to a case. But most of the analysis is done by comparative and statistical studies of the various finds.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Post Reply