Science/Evolution

B

Blkstones

New Member
im not looking to make a discussion on evolution. im looking more into studying it to further see how it cna be disproved.

in my biology book (christian book), Apology curriculum, they gave a small study on evolution, and gave reasons to disprove it. my book was published in 2004 and im sure evolution has broughten more ideas, and most have been disproven.

i lvoe science, i wish to study it in college. i have 2 reasons for wantign to study the reasoning/disproval of evolution.

1. if i do study science in college i have a bit of backround if anyone ever asks me why i am not an evolutionist.

2. evolution fascinates me for some reason, and i would lvoe to study and disprove some of there theories in the future depending on what i study and where god takes me in my life.



so im asking if anyone has ever read or studied about this and where/what they read. also any good sciences to study on that might help in that category. i did find interest i nmolecular biology myself.


p.s. i used the word study alot in that post didnt i? :eek:
 
Their idea on the age of the earth could be questioned very harshly, since "random mutations" (the odds of which occuring in the first place and then the chance .1% chance, I believe, of it being a beneficial mutation) would take a very long time to produce:

* 287,655 plants, including:
o 15,000 mosses,
o 13,025 ferns,
o 980 gymnosperms,
o 199,350 dicotyledons,
o 59,300 monocotyledons;
* 74,000-120,000 fungi[1];
* 10,000 lichens;
* 1,250,000 animals, including:
o 1,190,200 invertebrates:
+ 950,000 insects,
+ 70,000 molluscs,
+ 40,000 crustaceans,
+ 130,200 others;
o 58,808 vertebrates:
+ 29,300 fish,
+ 5,743 amphibians,
+ 8,240 reptiles,
+ 9,934 birds,
+ 5,416 mammals.

However the total number of species for some phyla may be much higher:

* 5-10 million bacteria[2];
* 1.5 million fungi[1];

(this is ctrl+c, ctrl+v from wikipedia's article on "species")
 
You have to be careful when discussing "evolution".

Macroevolution, basically the idea that one type of thing can become another. In short, macroevolution claims that given enough time, a cat can become a dog. Macroevolution Theory leads to claims that we all came from primordial ooze hundreds of billions of years ago.

Many people reference Darwin and his works when they talk about Macroevolution. However, in just a few minutes of google searching, I found several references to scholars that feel that Darwin's work was taken out of context. In addition, many believe that Darwin found logical flaws in his work and disbelieved many of the the theories. Rumor-mongerers even go as far to claim that Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed, despite his family members unanimously saying the he did not.

Microevolution Theory is much much different. Most people tend to think of Microevolution when they talk about the commonly accepted principles of Darwin's works. Microevolution allows for subspecies within a single group. For example, both an Olive Warbler and a Golden-winged Warbler are related, and could have the same ancestors. Microevolution also covers changes within a species. For example, Abraham Lincoln was just over 6 feet tall. In his time, he was considered extremely tall. In just a few generations, we now find that 6 feet is an average height for caucasian males.

In general, most people will agree that microevolution is completely possible. However, the stretch that macroevolutionists and "Big Bang" Theorists end up with, using the primordial ooze... is that they believe that we, as humans, came from wet rocks that got electrically charged.

my book was published in 2004 and im sure evolution has broughten more ideas
Click to expand...
Actually, neither the Evolutionists nor the Creationists have come up with any new arguments. Most creation/evolution arguments are based on information gathered more than 100 years ago.
 
Durruck said:
"Big Bang" Theorists
Click to expand...

Actually, the Big Bang is where it's at. Studies by physicists and cosmologists and astronomers and all those fancy space scientist guys show that the universe is expanding. If the universe is expanding, that means that at one point it was pretty small, like really really small. Just a tiny spec of nothingness... until God had it explode. I think that's how God made it. Of course, following everything in Genesis.

However, there is also proof of a 'young' earth. I wasn't able to find any quickly, but I think this site can help, I haven't checked it out yet, but it looked pretty good to me!
 
I don't believe in macroevolution, but I wrote a paper defending it by rebutting all the arguments against it in the poorly-written Christian textbook at my high school, and got an A.

My point is that I don't think evolution is true but a lot of the popular arguments against it are silly.
 
Durruck said:
You have to be careful when discussing "evolution".

Macroevolution, basically the idea that one type of thing can become another. In short, macroevolution claims that given enough time, a cat can become a dog. Macroevolution Theory leads to claims that we all came from primordial ooze hundreds of billions of years ago.
Click to expand...

Yes, you do have to be careful when discussing evolution...as Durruck pointed out by incorrectly stating that Macroevolution claims that a cat can become a dog. It does no such thing.

He is, however, correct in stating there are two basic types of evolution: Macro and Micro. There is no solid, reasonable evidence to support Macro evolution. The support just isn't there, which makes macro evolution a theory.

There is plenty of scientific support for micro evolution, which Darwin pointed out in his famous book and which scientists since then have corroborated.

I would be very careful about your approach to "science" though. Firstly, I would suggest using more than a Christian textbook to learn about evolution. If I wanted to study Christianity, you wouldn't expect me to learn all about it from Islamic texts would you? In the same vein, are you planning to study at a Christian university or a secular one?

You state that you want to study science to disprove evolution...you've already made a huge error by trying to find conclusions to support your beliefs. That's not science. You also make the false assumption that all scientists are evolutionists. This is not the case.

As a scientist, you will be required to use the scientific method...a method that is based on logic, reason and evidence...not religious dogma. If you're not willing to do that, you will not be a scientist.
 
I suggest reading "A Case for Creationism" by... oh, what's that guy. Stroebel? It has GREAT information PWNing evolution where it stands. There's also a reputable list of sources. It will open your eyes to arguments and points you've never thought of before.
 
I have a friend in some collage science class thingy, (I am not big on science), and to explain something to me he uses very strange ways of explaining things.

He told me that the chance of evolution, (the beginning of it part), was the same chance a tornado could go through a junk yard and reassemble a car.

Also, Darwin stated very clearly that it is a THOERY, and not to be taken literal...
 
Another thing to mention about my earlier post, science, when viewed CORRECTLY without any bias, actually supports Christianity and shows a side of God's awesomeness missed by the every day eye.

Darwin did say it was a theory. I've heard so many accounts of his life I don't know what's fact or fiction any more. But one version said toward the end of his life he spit on his own theory, calling it a bunch of nonsense.
 
I got a crash course in like 1997 about scientific proof to disprove evolution, unfortunately I don't have credited resources... but point I remember and liked was about our sun. It's known to being a dying star, which as stars die that reduce in temp. So, but reversing time you could scientifically calculate how hot it was in the past. Which for strange reasons after around 5,000 years the suns heat would been to intense for the closer plants to withstand and couldn't have existed. The thought process is interesting, but I don't have the scientific know how to calculate it out to correctly prove.
 
As a scientist, you will be required to use the scientific method...a method that is based on logic, reason and evidence...not religious dogma. If you're not willing to do that, you will not be a scientist.
Click to expand...

And evolution can be tested with the scientific method?
 
Macro evolution is not a theory. It is merely a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea with no proof. A theory is a hypothesis with some proof.
 
tjguitarz said:
I suggest reading "A Case for Creationism" by... oh, what's that guy. Stroebel? It has GREAT information PWNing evolution where it stands. There's also a reputable list of sources. It will open your eyes to arguments and points you've never thought of before.
Click to expand...

Two things...

You obviously haven't read any critiques of Stroebel's works. His theories aren't very sound and his investigative techniques are questionable, at best. Sorry, but there's no pwnage to be had. Here's a link to a critique if you're interested.

Second, there's no book entitled, "A Case for Creationism" that he authored. You may be thinking of, "The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God"...just in case you're trying to find the book.
 
Snake_Six said:
Macro evolution is not a theory. It is merely a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea with no proof. A theory is a hypothesis with some proof.
Click to expand...

Good point, technically and specifically, macroevolution is, indeed, a hypothesis; or, if you want to use more practical, scientific jargon, it could be referred to as a working hypothesis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top