tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post7276247218316675596..comments2023-10-24T03:48:03.925-07:00Comments on Pilgrimage: My thoughts on Evolution.Daniel (Da Pilgrim)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-90413967761091891442009-07-05T08:16:57.006-07:002009-07-05T08:16:57.006-07:00Vera is an old earth gal but I don't think she...Vera is an old earth gal but I don't think she believes in a common ancestor. She's more open minded about the timeline of creation so I think "progressive creationist" is probably a good term, I think it also would be safe to say she's an "old earth creationist"<br /><br />Vera's blog was the first blog I had ever been too :)Kerri Lovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05368500873620219614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-69948148768514398302009-07-04T04:11:44.436-07:002009-07-04T04:11:44.436-07:00Note also:
"Check out this bloggers site. Sh...Note also:<br /><br />"Check out this bloggers site. She believes in evolution but sounds like a sincere christian. Maybe she can help you more in that way. Her name is verandoug."<br /><br />I said this before, and I am not sure if it is true. I think she may be a progressive creationist. <br /><br />I hate to give wrong information.Daniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-72585286403027402092009-05-24T03:36:49.930-07:002009-05-24T03:36:49.930-07:00I have just edited a few little bits to the post s...I have just edited a few little bits to the post since the comments before this one :)Daniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-3279187880350558082009-05-08T08:01:00.000-07:002009-05-08T08:01:00.000-07:00"Yep agreed. It is a huge story though...one that ...<I>"Yep agreed. It is a huge story though...one that will have to be told with a lot of evidence before it is proven to be true. "</I>Well it's a good job we have lots of evidence then, eh? Because evolution has been shown to be true for decades now.<br /><br /><br /><I>"Big cats to orcas? WOW I could only dream of such a thing"</I>Come on Dan, nobody is suggesting that contemporary animals known as 'big cats' turned into Orca. We are saying that there is evidence to suggest that big cats and orca have a common ancestor.<br /><br />Try it out with your family tree. What you said is like; "My cousin to me? WOW I could only dream of such a thing"<br /><br />and we're saying; "No, you and your cousin share a common ancestor (your grandparent, for example)."<br /><br />I guess we'll carry this on in the new evolution thread...ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-8014670242189872532009-05-07T23:03:00.000-07:002009-05-07T23:03:00.000-07:00Hey Matt,
"We are never going to find every singl...Hey Matt,<br /><br />"We are never going to find every single individual that ever existed. We are never going to have a time machine with a time-lapse camera to witness the history of the earth first-hand."<br /><br />Yep agreed. It is a huge story though...one that will have to be told with a lot of evidence before it is proven to be true. At first looks it seems improbable and as the second post on evolution 2 brings forth, there are many difficulties, with some exceptions as you brought forth.<br /><br />Big cats to orcas? WOW I could only dream of such a thing.<br /><br />Thanks for you comments!<br /><br />DanDaniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-91607756740581181562009-05-06T07:57:00.000-07:002009-05-06T07:57:00.000-07:00Dan,
The image shows the 'nested hierarchy' of li...Dan,<br /><br />The image shows the 'nested hierarchy' of life that you hear mentioned so often. We have fossil evidence to construct graphics like this for <I>thousands</I> of known species.<br /><br />Paleontologists use information like this to predict where, and most importantly when, a transitional species would have to have lived. They then go digging in rocks that they know to be that age...when they do find fossils, they <B>always</B> fall into this nested hierarchy as predicted.<br /><br />This is but a small branch of the tree of life, it connects to other species and families in a way that is predicted by evolution.<br /><br />When we look at contemporary animals (say big cats and Orca) we can predict that certain genetic markers will be present, given the time since the animals diverged from each other (see graphic), we <B>always</B> find these markers to be supportive of common decent, as predicted by evolutionary theory.<br /><br /><I>"There are still huge gaps in that illustration."</I>Analogy:<br /><br />Say you're trying to construct a series of numbers from 1 - 10.<br /><br />You have 1,2,4 & 10 and you hypothesize that you should find 3 in-between 2 & 4. Then you find it. Number-deniers say that you haven't proved that 3 is a transitional between 2 & 4, so you go and find 2.5 - this <I>still</I> doesn't convince them, so you go find 2.25 & 2.75.<br /><br />Now we have 2, 2.25, 2.5, 2.75, 3 & 4. Pretty conclusive, right?<br /><br />No. The number-deniers may admit that there is micro-change between 2 & 3, but there's no evidence to show that 2 can become 4!<br /><br />So you start all over again and fill in the sequence from 2 to 4 (2.1, ,2.2, 2.3.....3.9, 4.0). Now, surely, they'll admit that 2 transitions to 4....<br /><br />Well, how do you know that 2.1 becomes 2.2? Say the number deniers and the scientist goes off in search of 2.15.....<br /><br />This is what you're doing Dan. <br /><br />We are never going to find every single individual that ever existed. We are never going to have a time machine with a time-lapse camera to witness the history of the earth first-hand.<br /><br />But the theory of evolution makes testable predictions that work and they wouldn't work if it was wrong.<br />Common decent is a fact. It has been well established for a long time now and it is constantly reinforced by new evidence.<br /><br />I don't know how else to put it.<br /><br />Cheers,ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-9442484897089283992009-05-06T04:46:00.000-07:002009-05-06T04:46:00.000-07:00Hey anaughtymouse,
So what is that link suppose t...Hey anaughtymouse,<br /><br />So what is that link suppose to tell me?<br />Have Orcas been around for 30 million years un changed? (at the bottom).<br />Is it saying that whales came from big cats?<br />Are these actual fossils found or they just someones drawings of imagination?<br /><br />There would need to be alot more examples of transitional fossils before it could be shown/proven that they evolved into each other. There are still huge gaps in that illustration.<br />They could very easily be variations of a type of whale or a type of cat designed be God, which I find more believable.<br /><br />Thankyou for taking the time for showing it to me though :)<br /><br />DanDaniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-28679195401508225952009-05-05T15:18:00.000-07:002009-05-05T15:18:00.000-07:00sorry, I don't have time to answer your properly, ...sorry, I don't have time to answer your properly, but I did find this interesting graphic, it's not a fossil but I thought it was pretty cool looking ;)<br /><br /><A HREF="http://tinyfrog.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/whales-graph.jpg" REL="nofollow"> take a look</A>anaughtymousenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-72157524047639304722009-05-05T10:54:00.000-07:002009-05-05T10:54:00.000-07:00"Technically the earth stopped spinning but to Jos...<I>"Technically the earth stopped spinning but to Joshua the sun stopped in the sky which viewing from earth was an accurate account. It did "stop" in the sky."</I>Except that it never happened... ;)<br /><br />The 'circle of the Earth' thing is a poetic device, the Bible is not a science textbook. If it was meant to be used for that, God could have inspired someone to write about DNA or the wave/particle duality of light in an unambiguous way.<br /><br />Regards,ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-76144102342725158602009-05-05T00:53:00.000-07:002009-05-05T00:53:00.000-07:00Hey there,
(You will see my new post " My thoughts...Hey there,<br />(You will see my new post " My thoughts on evolution 2").<br /><br />Note Matt that evidence doesn't refute or prove (as atheists keep telling me) but merely points in a direction.<br /><br />Yes evolution does not fit my view of the Bible's account but if I had to I could read it into the Bible as many have. I know the Bible is the truth.<br /><br />Technically you are right that the earth is a ball. Technically you are wrong in saying that the earth is not a circle.<br />Viewing a car is oblong and having circular wheels, this would not be a wrong account but only a part of a true account.<br />Like Joshua viewing the sun being stopped in the sky. Technically the earth stopped spinning but to Joshua the sun stopped in the sky which viewing from earth was an accurate account. It did "stop" in the sky.<br /><br />Isaiah actually said it before Pythagoras did.<br /><br />Cya,<br /><br />DanDaniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-92208676952713250362009-05-04T08:55:00.000-07:002009-05-04T08:55:00.000-07:00Da Bomb,
You didn't actually "say' anything in yo...Da Bomb,<br /><br />You didn't actually "say' anything in your response, Dan. You just waffled a lot about hearing stuff from some guy one time and so, yeah, there you go, evolution's wrong because some sciency types think it is so there.<br /><br /><br />You said, at the start of this thread that there was evidence 'for and against' evolution. I have asked you, repeatedly, to produce a single piece of evidence that refutes the theory and you have yet to do so.<br /><br />Your only evidence so far is your own personal incredulity - that's not evidence. At the end of your comment, you seem to concede that your denial of evolution is based on the fact that it doesn't jive with your interpretation of the Bible; is this the case?<br /><br /><br />As for the Isaiah quote.<br /><br />The Greeks knew of the shape of the Earth before 2,500 years ago, so it's not that impressive really.<br /><br />Also, the Earth is not a 'circle' it is an 'oblique spheroid'. A circle is a 2D shape, a disc. This is odd because there are Hebrew words, used in the Bible, for 'ball' and 'round' so the use of the word for 'circle' seems deliberate....<br /><br />Regards,ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-21335429452197215002009-05-01T15:07:00.000-07:002009-05-01T15:07:00.000-07:00You guys didn't answer my question...
"What do yo...You guys didn't answer my question...<br /><br />"What do you think of Isaiah saying that God is above the circle of the earth? that's an interesting thought. Isa 40:22"<br /><br />You know he said that 2500 years ago. :)<br /><br />DanDaniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-56048451966448973902009-05-01T15:05:00.000-07:002009-05-01T15:05:00.000-07:00Hey there Matt!
"Do you know of any evidence that...Hey there Matt!<br /><br />"Do you know of any evidence that refutes the theory of evolution?<br /><br />If you don't, then say you don't. But you can't continue to say that there is evidence for and against if you don't know any that's 'against'!"<br /><br />Well I want to be honest.<br />I have read about different evidences against evolution but for me to gather them together and form an argument would be difficult because I have heard them far and between and know little about them. The information I heard regarding that were from scientists who know a heck of alot more than me. Also friends who have looked into for example the eye...they were explaining to me the difficulties of it evolving. But that, I can't re-call exactly what they said but it sounded convincing.<br /><br />My main argument really is that it seems improbable that evolution happened according to thinking it through...regarding how and why. I suppose science can answer the how (although it happened a long time ago which makes it difficult to call it "science") but not the why.<br />I remain unconvinced that it has happened to the extent that you suppose. <br />I will be honest aswell that the Bible although evolution can be read into it does imply at first glance that the main basis of what we see today was made not evolved-made. So that is my stance. <br /><br />There we go that is what I honestly think.<br /><br />DanDaniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-84031466301882960932009-05-01T14:48:00.000-07:002009-05-01T14:48:00.000-07:00Hello again Anonemouse,
"So you believe that your...Hello again Anonemouse,<br /><br />"So you believe that your own understanding of evolution and your personal disbelief in it should be a reason for it not to be taught in schools. That means you believe that your own personal beliefs, should be taught in school. I mentioned before that personal beliefs should not be the basis of a school’s curriculum and what you have said is a perfect example of why this is not allowed."<br /><br />To me evolution from origins is a belief...so it should not be taught as truth but a possible theory. You see me belief as a personal belief so it should not be taught. Science can not only show how something happend but it also can show how something could not happen, regarding the eye etc.<br /><br />"What I am saying is it did not create itself, since an eye has no means of creating itself."<br /><br />I think you knew what I meant "creating itself".<br /><br />"Another example would be the nose of this animal. We can see thought out the fossil record the location of the nostrils moving slowly from the face to the back of the head, one small step at a time."<br /><br />Can you give me a link to these animal fossils? I have never seen nor heard of any such systematic findings of fossils. <br /><br />"The animal that lived near the river, evolved into a hippo, and the animal that lived near the ocean, evolved into a whale."<br /><br />So life start in the water...then evolved onto land...then returned to the water...hmmmm<br /><br />"As for my disbelief in God and the Bible, it has nothing to do with science."<br /><br />I'm curious as to what your problem is then?<br />From memory Ray Comfort goes as far to say that even if the Bible were not real he would know that there was a God up there somewhere who decided that everything woud be as everything is. I suppose a similar to a deist.<br /><br />Catch ya,<br /><br />DanDaniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-27835764706695193092009-05-01T03:20:00.000-07:002009-05-01T03:20:00.000-07:00Hi guys!
Anonymous, you said, "How do you know th...Hi guys!<br /><br />Anonymous, you said, "How do you know that the christian isn't just being deceptive and saying they're christian when they're not? Do you check into their past, see if they have something to gain by their claim, check to see if other scientists agree with his finding? Or do you simply trust God and therefor the christian?"<br /><br />You are perfectly right - obviously not everyone can be trusted! I think that most of us are aware that there are many people out there who call themselves Christians and deliberately lie. God Himself warns us in the bible of people who do that very thing. We do need to be very careful with who we listen to and believe. Simply "trusting God" and believing everything that every "Christian" says is naive. <br /><br />So yes, we do need to check people out, and, as you say, checking into their past and how their views line up with other scientists is a good way to start. But if two scientists tell me something, and they disagree, who am I to be able to tell them which is right (scientifically)? I don't know enough science to be able to direct scientists, and point out where one is wrong and the other is right.<br /><br />What do I do then, if I cannot believe them both? I suppose most would go with the majority... (funny, that!) But we know from history that the majority is not always right. :) <br /><br />I know the flat earth example is used a lot, but it is a good one! What would you have told a guy in ancient times if he dared to suggest that the earth was a ball? "Go see if your view lines up with everyone else's"? I don't think so, somehow. I think you might have told him to examine the evidence himself, and then compare it with what others have discovered.<br /><br />This is what I have done. I do not take every word of so-called Christian scientists as the gospel truth (although a lot of what they say does make sense). To me the universe and the existence of life itself screams out, "GOD MADE IT ALL!!" Everything does line up. It makes perfect sense. Life. Death. Suffering. Happiness. Morality. Everything. <br /><br /><br /><br />Hmmm... over to you, Dan! :PEsther Tattersallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14758690132370358723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-66534919133781733842009-04-30T10:34:00.000-07:002009-04-30T10:34:00.000-07:00“Personally I think if someone is wrong about some...“Personally I think if someone is wrong about something as big as this (evolution)..it's because it is so unclear whether it is true or not. It must be interpretable”<br /><br />This is a personal statement, you believe it is unclear, I see it as quite clear and there hundreds of scientists, much smarter then you or I, that have looked at the evidence and came up with this view. Since they are much smarter then I, and from what evidence they have shown, I believe it is not unclear to them, therefore perhaps it is your knowledge of it and personal beliefs that makes it unclear to you.<br /><br />“I do not believe that evolution is our origin (this should not be taught in schools).”<br /><br />So you believe that your own understanding of evolution and your personal disbelief in it should be a reason for it not to be taught in schools. That means you believe that your own personal beliefs, should be taught in school. I mentioned before that personal beliefs should not be the basis of a school’s curriculum and what you have said is a perfect example of why this is not allowed.<br /><br />Evolution as our origin is not simply a belief, it has been studied and tested and verified and therefore it is taught. So once again, you are welcome to believe or not believe it, but it should be taught in school because it is a well researched and documented scientific theory. So far, no evidence has been found to go against this theory and therefore it is taught.<br /><br />“What are you saying? That God made it...if God didn't then what did? The only other option is "it made itself"...evolution (of origins).”<br /><br />What I am saying is it did not create itself, since an eye has no means of creating itself. It is a sensory device that has developed over time. To say an eye created itself is to say, for example, you created yourself. You cannot create yourself because before you came into existence, you didn’t exist, since you didn’t exist, you could not create. Do you see what I am saying here? To say an eye “created itself” is to say it existed before it existed. To say an eye “created” is to say it has the ability to create, which we know is not true. An eye can send sensory data to the brain, but it can not create.<br /><br />“I thought that the teacher was well in her right (I don't know the details of what was being taught) to bring other scientific views across”<br /><br />There lies the problem, what she said was not a scientific view it was a belief. There is no scientific evidence that an eye would create itself or that anyone with scientific knowledge would say it was true, so to say that is to state a belief, not a scientific view. This is a view that goes against the scientific view.<br /><br />"the Eye to some scientists is inexplicable regarding evolution being its formation, from their scientific discoveries it must have been made by an intelligent designer"<br /><br />This is not a scientific view, I’m not sure where you obtained this information but I doubt any scientist would say that the eye being inexplicable regarding evolution would prove it was made by an “intelligent designer” especially since our own eyes are not a very good design when compared to the eyes of other animals in the world. The eyes of a hawk or eagle, if thought to be designed, are better then our own. So with that in mind, would this designer be best described as “intelligent”? The human eye has flaws so if it was in fact designed, then it was designed with flaws, which is not what I would consider to be intelligent design.<br /><br />“Are there any half hippos/half whales found before?<br />I really do find it extremely hard to see a Hippo growing a big tale and loosing it's legs, growing a huge mouth etc.”<br /><br />Your confusion here seems to stem from the fact that whales were once hippos, they were never hippos so there would be no “half hippo/half whale”. There are fossils of an animal that had the features you described, “Loosing its legs, growing a huge mouth, and growing a big tail” so yes, we do have evidence of that happening. You seem to think this would happen very dramatically and all of a sudden. This is something that happened very slowly and gradually over a large amount of time in very small steps. For example, the legs of this creature would very slowly become smaller and over a long period of time, since there was no use for them in the animal’s new habitat, they would change to better fit the habituate and the life of the animal in the water. Another example would be the nose of this animal. We can see thought out the fossil record the location of the nostrils moving slowly from the face to the back of the head, one small step at a time. It would not suddenly appear on it’s back, it moved upwards in incremental steps through each generation of the animals being born until it finally appeared on the back of the animal, making the blowhole we see today. <br /><br />These steps happen over many generations, each animal being born slightly different then its predicators. Such an even took thousands of years and thousands of generations. If one were to live in this time, you would not see a change during your lifetime since it happened that slowly.<br /><br />The hippo has no reason to look like a whale since it does not live in the ocean; the whale has no reason to look like a hippo because it does not live in a river. In the far distant past, there was an animal from which these two creatures, who now live in very different habitats, evolved from. The animal that lived near the river, evolved into a hippo, and the animal that lived near the ocean, evolved into a whale.<br /><br />Let me use an example you probably know. The Crocoduck shown as a question to evolution, why is there no such animal in the fossil record. The reason we don’t see such a creature in the fossil record is because, even if the crocodile and duck had a common ancestor, that ancestor is so distant, that it neither looks like a duck or a crocodile. The distance in evolution of these 2 animals is so far from each other that they no longer have any shared, recognizable features. There is also no reason in nature for such an animal to exist. The duck and the crocodile live in very different environments and have very different adaptations to their environments.<br /><br />As for my disbelief in God and the Bible, it has nothing to do with science.Anonemousenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-15066104148328110872009-04-30T07:22:00.000-07:002009-04-30T07:22:00.000-07:00Da Bomb,
I'm going to skip through a lot because ...Da Bomb,<br /><br />I'm going to skip through a lot because there's something I want to know.<br /><br />Are you aware of any evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution as it relates to the descent and diversification of all life on Earth from one or more common ancestor(s).<br /><br />No age of the Earth stuff.<br />No abiogenesis stuff.<br /><br />Do you know of any evidence that refutes the theory of evolution?<br /><br />If you don't, then say you don't. But you can't continue to say that there is evidence for and against if you don't know any that's 'against'!<br /><br />Sorry to be a nag, but if we're going to talk about this stuff I have to know where you're coming from.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />MattExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-71793916776917952972009-04-30T02:35:00.000-07:002009-04-30T02:35:00.000-07:00Anonymous,
You seem to suggest that the hinderenc...Anonymous,<br /><br />You seem to suggest that the hinderence to you believing the Bible and in God is that it is unscientific. (I get that impression) <br />Check out this bloggers site. She believes in evolution but sounds like a sincere christian. Maybe she can help you more in that way. Her name is verandoug.<br /><br />What do you think of Isaiah saying that God is above the circle of the earth? that's an interesting thought. Isa 40:22<br /><br />Hope I can be of help to you finding God.<br /><br />DanDaniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-8968021014365775542009-04-29T22:47:00.000-07:002009-04-29T22:47:00.000-07:00Hello Anonymous (why don't you get a name) :),
"A...Hello Anonymous (why don't you get a name) :),<br /><br />"A Christian might risk going to hell to try and prove the bible is accurate and the scientists are wrong. They can always ask for forgiveness later, or rationalize their lie as being necessary to save thousands of souls from hell. If anything, they have more reason to lie." <br /><br />I would disagree with that, I hope I won't be like that nor any other Christian. That is not Biblical teaching. They would be shooting themselves in the foot. Trying to prove what they know to be not true, what idiots? No person in their right mind unless they had an agenda would do that!<br />Personally I think if someone is wrong about something as big as this (evolution)..it's because it is so unclear whether it is true or not. It must be interpretable. <br />Like, as I mentioned before, to convince someone that apples aren't real when they are holding them in their hand would be rediculous.<br /><br />"This statement "the eye is to complex to have made itself" is an obvious false statement, since no eye has ever "made itself"<br /><br />What are you saying? That God made it...if God didn't then what did? The only other option is "it made itself"...evolution (of origins).<br /><br />Do I have a sense that your just picking on terms?<br /><br />I thought that the teacher was well in her right (I don't know the details of what was being taught) to bring other scientific views across that said "the Eye to some scientists is inexplicable regarding evolution being its formation, from their scientific discoveries it must have been made by an intelligent designer" <br /><br />I was thinking more about that whale coming from hippos idea you were talking about before.<br /><br />Are there any half hippos/half whales found before?<br />I really do find it extreemly hard to see a Hippo growing a big tale and loosing it's legs, growing a huge mouth etc.<br /><br />I have had a lot to reply to.<br /><br />Thanks for your comment!<br /><br />DanDaniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-18285669446273939722009-04-29T22:24:00.000-07:002009-04-29T22:24:00.000-07:00Hey Matt!
"do some research before you start slan...Hey Matt!<br /><br />"do some research before you start slandering an entire field of scientific researchers".<br /><br />I did not slander an entire "field"...I said not all.<br /><br /><br />"Then you tell me that, in fact, it's my job to tell you what the evidences against evolution are! Are you joking?"<br /><br />I did not mean that, sorry, :( I worded it wrong. I meant the opposite. I meant if you believe in the "theory of evolution" (being our origins) then you provide me with the evidence. Just as I believe in God, I am to give you evidence (actually I think the evidence is in front of everyone, but that is beyond the point).<br /><br />I would like to give meanings for the use of my terms because we keep misunderstanding each other.<br /><br />I agree with evolution that new species can be formed out of change. <br />I do not believe that evolution is our origin (this should not be taught in schools).<br /><br />I suppose I keep confusing evolution with Naturalism? <br />Lots of people seem to use evolution in terms of Naturalism...an excuse to get away from God.<br /><br />Thanks for your comment,<br /><br />DanDaniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-33460020927609070842009-04-29T19:29:00.000-07:002009-04-29T19:29:00.000-07:00I believe that teacher may have gotten into troubl...I believe that teacher may have gotten into trouble for using an example that many creationists have made, and therefore her personal beliefs and agenda were improperly taught in the classroom.<br /><br />This statement "the eye is to complex to have made itself" is an obvious false statement, since no eye has ever "made itself" but it seems to be repeated in a lot of places by creationist who are trying to propagate their own agenda. Many people have corrected this statement, and yet it is still repeated.<br /><br />Teachers are not allowed to teach their personal beliefs, it would be wrong for them to do so. I would agree that a teacher who says a statement like that, isn't being a very good teacher since the statement is obviously false and shows the teacher might have had an agenda of her own that she was trying to teach. She was hired and being paid to teach a set curriculum, not her own personal beliefs. Such teachings are not meant to be taught at school, but in a church or by family. She was telling her students that an eye was to complex to make itself, and that is an attempt to mislead the students she was paid to teach, she tried to do this by saying "some people" believe this to be true, without mentioning it’s obvious falsehood. A school classroom is not a place to make such a statement especially when it is so obviously false.<br /><br />Yes, I agree, I think that is sad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-56881099378201616522009-04-29T18:10:00.000-07:002009-04-29T18:10:00.000-07:00Anonymous,
Food for thought,
I have a friend who...Anonymous,<br /><br />Food for thought,<br /><br />I have a friend who comes from Australia and she said that in her school they were taught evolution. The teacher made one point that other people do not accept this view and say that the eye is too complex to have made itself.<br /><br />The teacher got in trouble by one of the class pupils.<br /><br />I think that is sad.<br /><br />DanDaniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-9180593412742813452009-04-29T15:08:00.001-07:002009-04-29T15:08:00.001-07:00Sorry I have another comment ;)
"Piltdown man etc...Sorry I have another comment ;)<br /><br />"Piltdown man etc was a hoax. I was pointing out that not all lovely evolutionists are honest"<br /><br />ahh yes, that's one, and that was revealed as a hoax by scientists... <br /><br />"Piltdown Man was exposed as a forgery, mainly through the work of Dr Kenneth Oakley. He showed that the skull was from a modern human and that the jawbone and teeth were from an orangutan."<br /><br />So you see, science never stops when an answer is presented, it must be tested and tested and verified and verified just in case someone thinks to try and put another 'hoax' in the books.<br /><br />The creationists had a bit of the same thing happen on their side...<br /><br />"For many years claims were made by strict creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists."<br /><br />So you see, even 'christian' scientists who will 'go to hell' for lying, still lie.<br /><br />"I know that to a christian if he lies he goes to hell. If an atheist lies...nothing happens."<br /><br />So you have to question, is this christian really a christian? You can't just assume that because they say they are, they are. A Christian might risk going to hell to try and prove the bible is accurate and the scientists are wrong. They can always ask for forgiveness later, or rationalize their lie as being necessary to save thousands of souls from hell. If anything, they have more reason to lie. <br /><br />How do you know that the christian isn't just being deceptive and saying they're christian when they're not? Do you check into their past, see if they have something to gain by their claim, check to see if other scientists agree with his finding? Or do you simply trust God and therefor the christian?<br /><br />You seem to think that there is a great conspiracy that all atheists would lie just to keep the bible from appearing to be true. I think that's because a lot of Christians think that Atheists "hate" god and would do anything not to believe in him... but they can't hate what they don't believe in, so why would they do that?<br /><br />Scientists are on a quest for the truth, Christian scientists are on a quest for biblical truth... who's got more reason to lie?<br /><br />Always take these truths with a grain of salt and try to check the facts before you reach a decision, that's what I do :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-3303236572415745282009-04-29T15:08:00.000-07:002009-04-29T15:08:00.000-07:00Da Bomb,
"Piltdown man"? Really? Come on, do some...Da Bomb,<br /><br /><I>"Piltdown man"</I>? Really? Come on, do some research before you start slandering an entire field of scientific researchers.<br /><br />Here's a head start:<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html<br /><br /><br /><br />Next.<br /><br /><br /><br />So, you say that there is evidence that both supports and contradicts the theory of evolution. I ask you what this evidence against it is. You ignore my request for a while. Then you tell me that, in fact, it's <I>my</I> job to tell <I>you</I> what the evidences against evolution are! Are you joking?<br /><br />I'll ask you again, just so we're clear; what are some (one will do) of the evidences that contradict the theory of evolution as modern biologists understand it?<br /><br /><I>"I know that to a christian if he lies he goes to hell. If an atheist lies...nothing happens."</I>And yet, alarmingly for your side of the discussion, creationists are caught in far more lies, far more often and tend to repeat the lies even when they've been exposed. They do it so often that unsuspecting amateur creationists get caught up in the lie without realizing and parrot the lies word-for-word.<br /><br />Science, on the other hand, is self correcting and when hoaxes, lies and mistakes are uncovered, they are exposed for what they are.<br /><br />I'm not saying that scientist never lie or fudge their results. But the nature of science ensures that these lies will be found out and so much depends on your reputation these days that you can't afford to be caught out like that.<br /><br />Hovind, Ham, Comfort and others have made a living out of lying about science - and they're supposed to be the True Christians!<br /><br /><br /><br />I said that the guy had a head injury because that's what it said in his bio, with regard to leaving the service. No hidden meaning intended.<br /><br /><br />From your reply to 'anonymous' you said;<br /><br /><I>"Everything making itself is an idea aswell...not proven. So why is that taught?"</I>If anyone actually taught that, you'd have a point.<br /><br />Cheers,ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-22569843114227906112009-04-29T14:47:00.000-07:002009-04-29T14:47:00.000-07:00I have never been in a class that teaches what you...I have never been in a class that teaches what you just said. Which adds weight to my argument, you should only teach scientifically tested and verified information in a science class... I wouldn't want "Everything making itself" to be taugh in a science class, I think that's pretty much as bad as "Creation" really.<br /><br />as for what you said previously to EPM: What was the point in saying "he had a head injury", are you saying he had all the sense knocked out of him?<br /><br />I think he was giving a reason for him to have left the air force...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com