Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[Dimensio]

And the gospel of Evolution is supposed to do what for us?

I was not aware that any scientific theory is presented as "gospel". Perhaps you should study the subject.

[unspun]

I was not aware that any scientific theory is presented as "gospel". Perhaps you should study the subject.

As you may recall, I've studied the subject enough to know that the doctrine and shifting hypotheses of Evolution have not been demonstrated enough to be called a scientific theory.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Explain how a DESIGN can NOT have a DESIGNER.

Self-organizing systems.... And that's where God's design is found, IMO. Not in the creation of life, but the in the creation of the universe in which life is capable of developing and evolving.

[Dimensio]

YOU tell me where the universe came from.

The theory of evolution does not address the origins of the universe.

- YOU tell me where LIFE came from.

The theory of evolution does not address the ultimate origin of life.

- YOU tell me- tell us all- where the single celled LIVING ORGANISM came from.

The theory of evolution does not address this subject.

- YOU explain HOW something like A SINGLE STRAND OF DNA ACCIDENTLY "appeared".

The theory of evolution does not address the genesis of DNA.

- YOU tell me HOW from that ONE, lonesome cell EVERYTHING ELSE came to be.

This question is vague, and thus not easy to answer. However, if there exists an imperfectly replicating cell that produces multiple imperfect copies of itself, a process of natural selection combined with this imperfect replicatian can lead to genetic diversity. If this does not sufficicently answer your query, then I must ask you to rephrase your question with more precise boundaries.

- Explain how a DESIGN can NOT have a DESIGNER.

From where have you inferred "DESIGN"? Please be specific.

- True story:

- Sir Issac Newton was a God-fearing, Bible-believing Christian. He had an atheist friend though who scoffed at him for quite some time on his visits with Newton. After some time this atheist friend arrived at Newton's place and, behold, there sat on a work-table a precise replica of our solar system. The planets revolving around the sun at the turn of a crank. Newton's atheist friend exclaimed, "Where did this come from my good friend?"
- Newton replied: "From NOWHERE, it JUST APPEARED on my work table."
- To this is atheist friend became angry and retorted, "Bah! Something this precise MUST OF HAD A MAKER!"
- To which Newton replied; "And so does our universe."

Please provide a historical record of this "true story".

[Dimensio]

As you may recall, I've studied the subject enough to know that the doctrine and shifting hypotheses of Evolution have not been demonstrated enough to be called a scientific theory.

You are mistaken. I do not recall that you have demonstrated that the vast majority of biologists in their classification of evolution as a theory.

[Dimensio]

There are NO froggits- NO "proof" that two frogs gave birth to a part frog part rabbit...

The theory of evolution does not predict any such event. That you believe that such a thing should be expected from evolution suggests that you are insufficiently informed on the subject to be considered a credible source when speaking on it.

[Dimensio]

The "Big-Bang" is not ever assoicated with the "Big-Bang".

I made no such statement.

That's new. When did that change.

Your question is founded upon a false premies. I did not claim that "The "Big-Bang" is not ever assoicated with the "Big-Bang"." Perhaps your inquiries would be more productive if they addressed statements that I have made, rather than statements that I have not made.

And it has been a while since I dusted off my studies on the MYTH of evolution, so please, YOU explain to me WHERE EVERYTHING came from.

The theory of evolution does not address where "EVERYTHING" originated.

Explain to me WHERE LIFE came from. HOW did LIFE and ALL CREATION get here.

The theory of evolution does not address the ultimate origin of life, thus your question is meaningless in this context.

[King Prout]

at some point, the "issue" itself is purely personal.

is it permitted to point out, bluntly, to an aggressive and profligate poster who is either a complete idiot or a liar (or both) that he is indeed a complete idiot/liar/both?

Or is it only permitted to True Believers to aggressively and profligately call all who accept the validity of the SToE liars and morons in a general, broad-brush manner. Is such an one, protected by special Religion Forum Dispensation, immune from "personal" rebuke?

[Celtjew Libertarian]

- Now Jesus is either telling THE TRUTH and as such IS God The Son in Flesh and God's Word is 100% perfect. OR Jesus is lying which either makes him a cold-hearted LIAR or a raving LUNATIC. The evidence points to Jesus telling AND being The Truth.

Or Jesus is being misreported.

[Coyoteman]

EVERY event The Bible mentions has also been verified by history and archeology.

The global flood has not been verified by either history or archaeology.

The civilization in Egypt was extant at the purported time of the flood. They did not mention it, and were not wiped out by it.

I do archaeology in the western US. We have no record in the soils at ca. 2350 BC of a flood.

I will be happy to share some pertinent DNA evidence with you if you like.