McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

[Stc95]

If God is the ruler of the universe, which he is, and he has direct control over all aspects of everything, which he does, then how is evolution such a "non-christian" view? Do you think that God had/has no control over it?

I find evolution to be a completely ingenious act that helps animals, plants, insects etc, defy extinction. It is a beautiful thing and to think that God has nothing to do with it (from what it sounds like from this thread) is an insult, in my opinion. The idea that animals change over time to adapt to their changing environment is completely and utterly fascinating.

I believe in evolution. It has too much proof to ignore it. Does that mean that I believe that we were once apes and monkeys? No. I believe that the Bible is true, and that evolution exists.

Odale, your thinking about Micro-Evolution. Which has been scientifically proven. I have no problem with that. It makes sense and God is so amazing for making and designing animals to adapt to their environment to avoid extinction. But, a lot of people get confused when someone says the word Evolution, because it had 6 definitions. These are some notes that I took:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space, and matter (Big Bang)
2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen
3. Stellar and Planetary evolution: Origin of stars and planets. (No one has ever seen a star form.)
4. Organic Evolution: Origin of Life. (No body has a clue how life started from non-living material)
5. Macro-Evolution: Changing from one kind into another. (Nobody has seen a dog produce a non-dog, never. Bible: the animals will bring forth after their KIND. Dog and a wolf are the same kind but two different types of species.)
6. Micro-Evolution: Variations within kinds. (Only this one has been observed. Changes within the kinds.)

Now you asked me if I had a problem with Evo. Well, in short yes. Because it is taking glory from God. How? Well, first off, instead of God making the Earth, Nothing exploded.. and here we are. So now instead of God getting the credit, Nothing is. From a Christian standpoint, we can say "God could have used that to make the Earth!" Well, the Bible says He made the Earth in 7 days. So that pretty much debunks Evolution #1-4.

To stop myself from going off on a tangent. I believe in Evolution. Its kinda hard not to. But I only believe in Mirco-Evolution. The only one that has any evidence. The other ones have none.

I think the question being posed is this: If we have no solid evidence of Macro-Evolution, why are we unwilling to consider that Intelligent Design (while many will dispute it) is just as valid of a source of our existence?

Cause Intelligent Design isn't tax funded and people believe they have solid evidence of Maco-Evolution since they have evidence for Micro-Evolution.



NOTE: No intention of malice or ill-feelings if anyone takes it that way.

 

[Avesther]

I think the question being posed is this: If we have no solid evidence of Macro-Evolution, why are we unwilling to consider that Intelligent Design (while many will dispute it) is just as valid of a source of our existence?

Lets make it an even footing. If Macro-Evolution requires a leap of faith to accept then it too must not be taught in class and allow the atheists to enforce thier views on their children.

 

[Odale]

Within the CGA, we've circled round-and-round about this. Obviously we don't have the complete answer.

You can't deny that there is evidence of microevolution, that is, that species do adapt over time.

But science has yet to show that macroevolution (ie, common ancestry) has any basis.

Logically, there is just too big of a step to take there for me....

I don't think we will ever generate an answer

The key is time. Sure, a giraffe with a longer neck can eat the higher leaves in trees and chameleons can change color and etc, etc. Given a long enough period these animals can/will change into totally different animals. All you must do is look at the form they started with and the form they ended up with. When they stop changing is when their bodies best fit their surroundings. Many scientists believe that Earth is around 4 billion years old and that it has been habitable for a fourth of that time. That's 1,000,000,000 years long! I think that it is possible for animals to change dramatically over that amount of time.
http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/reprint/190/1/1 - Click begin manual download.

Odale, your thinking about Micro-Evolution. Which has been scientifically proven. I have no problem with that. It makes sense and God is so amazing for making and designing animals to adapt to their environment to avoid extinction. But, a lot of people get confused when someone says the word Evolution, because it had 6 definitions...

To stop myself from going off on a tangent. I believe in Evolution. Its kinda hard not to. But I only believe in Mirco-Evolution. The only one that has any evidence. The other ones have none.

NOTE: No intention of malice or ill-feelings if anyone takes it that way.

Doesn't Micro-Evolution further Macro-Evolution's acceptability? If an animal can change their bodies within their own species, then don't they carry the ability to over time evolve into a totally different animal from whence they started? It is a very logical point to be made.

Many scientists believe that modern-day birds are the closest descendants to dinosaurs we have (note that there were no "birds" - feathered AND beaked animals during that era, they had not evolved yet). Sure, there were dinosaurs that flew, and some even had primitive feathers, but none were nearly the same as present-day birds.

Scientists could probably help proving macro-evolution by comparing DNA samples from certain animals, but that involved knowing the genome of that animal, which will take years! No one will ever be able to conclusively prove that evolution is fake or real. It simply takes too long for species to change enough to be called "macro-evolution."

Edit: Sorry to pull this thread so off course. =\

 

[Durruck]

But part of the theory of (macro) evolution is that the species will adapt to avoid extinction. Hard to say that a cat became a dog to avoid extinction if we still have cats.

Another problem with that theory is that you can cross-breed ANY two dogs and you still get a dog (including a feral wolf and a chihuahua). Try and breed a dog and a cat...it doesn't work. Nor can you breed a cat with a giraffe, a horse, a goat, a camel, a pig, a tree, a cow, or an ostrich. If cats were distantly related to another animal, cross-breeding would be possible. At least that's what we were taught in Biology... ya know, one of the scientific-type classes

Well, I suppose you can cross a cat with a plate of fried rice... but that's a different subject. That's HomeEc. *grin*

 

[Avesther]

Are we discussing the theory of evolution or science ciriculum?

If creationism is considered non-scientific then I propose that evolutonary theory of the origins of life are as non-scientific and should not be taught based on the same arguement.

The origin of life happened only once on this planet and seeing as it was not observed, it is not testable nor is it re-observable. And what ever theory you come up with (evoluton, creationism or a mix of the two, aliens leaving behind DNA or what ever), its purely speculation based on your world view that is influenced by your past, education, intellegance and faith.

 

[Odale]

Are we discussing the theory of evolution or science ciriculum?

It appears that we have talked about everything else, why not?

Durruck, I think you're missing the point I am trying to make.

 

[Durruck]

Are we discussing the theory of evolution or science curriculum?

Isn't the theory of Evolution taught in science class? Seems like we've broken off to discussing a particular sub-section of the science curriculum.

Durruck, I think you're missing the point I am trying to make.

Perhaps. I was specifically addressing this part of your post:

If an animal can change their bodies within their own species, then don't they carry the ability to over time evolve into a totally different animal from whence they started? It is a very logical point to be made.

That's what drove my post on cross-breeding. I believe your logic to be flawed.... as I'm sure you believe mine to be flawed. We may just have to agree to disagree at some point.

Unless we're ready to go down the road to discussing vampires, werewolves, Bigfoot, and zombies. Which would be an unfortunate death to a legitimate discussion, IMO.

 

[Odale]

<Watches us form circles.>

I agree.

 

[Avesther]

Given a long enough period these animals can/will change into totally different animals. All you must do is look at the form they started with and the form they ended up with. When they stop changing is when their bodies best fit their surroundings.

Talking about when they stop changing because their bodies best fit their surroundings is alluding to sentient evolution. That is the process itself knows whats best and attempts to conform to it.

That is saynig that a giraffe has a long neck because over time the giraffe genes\dna knew that the leaves on a tree for best survival of the species is at the top of the tree, not the bottom, and not that it is true today, but will be true in 1 million years, so lets start growing the neck today so that given enough time, all giraffes have a long neck to eat the leaves from the top of a tree for survival.

Compare that to evolutionary postulation that argues because there was competition for leaves at the bottom of the tree, the only giraffes to survive are the ones that had a genetic anomoly that lengthened their necks. Those without the anomoly died out.