Comments on: Where do you stand on evolution? http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution/?source=rss current events, culture, faith, science and more Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:30:31 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: ChrisB http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-10160 ChrisB Tue, 29 May 2007 02:25:34 +0000 http://intheagora.com/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution.html#comment-10160 I agree with John McCain - there is not necessarily a conflict between evolution and belief in God. However, (and please do not think this arrogant), as a biologist and a spiritual seeker, i am astounded by the level of ignorance displayed in these comments regarding evolutionary theory. If anyone here is sincerley interested in understanding current scientic thinking on how life on Earth in its current form came to be, I suggest finding a good 'Evolution 101' type text book and reading it with an open mind, putting prejudice aside. You may reject all or part of what you learn, but at least you will be informed. I agree with John McCain – there is not necessarily a conflict between evolution and belief in God. However, (and please do not think this arrogant), as a biologist and a spiritual seeker, i am astounded by the level of ignorance displayed in these comments regarding evolutionary theory. If anyone here is sincerley interested in understanding current scientic thinking on how life on Earth in its current form came to be, I suggest finding a good ‘Evolution 101′ type text book and reading it with an open mind, putting prejudice aside. You may reject all or part of what you learn, but at least you will be informed.

]]> By: David M Zuniga http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-10159 David M Zuniga Wed, 16 May 2007 17:00:46 +0000 http://intheagora.com/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution.html#comment-10159 Dave L, No, it's not technically "poppycock". Distinguo. The Christian merely appeals to authority: the word of God. God will have no challengers to that authority in the eternal frame; in other words, while you're free to disbelieve, you will pay a price for it for all eternity. God is eminently fair in this eternal schema, for on the one hand He has laid out His bona fides and authority in all of creation, beyond the power of any but the most numb-skulled rebel, to witness. On the other hand, having witnessed it since childhood, you are left with the liberty to say "no!" and of course, many do. Your agrument is not with anyone here. In fact, your argument is not even with God, for He brooks no argument. Your argument, as you will see, is with the worms in your casket. And theories aside, we all know who wins that one, eh? Dave L,
No, it’s not technically “poppycock”. Distinguo.
The Christian merely appeals to authority: the word of God. God will have no challengers to that authority in the eternal frame; in other words, while you’re free to disbelieve, you will pay a price for it for all eternity.
God is eminently fair in this eternal schema, for on the one hand He has laid out His bona fides and authority in all of creation, beyond the power of any but the most numb-skulled rebel, to witness. On the other hand, having witnessed it since childhood, you are left with the liberty to say “no!” and of course, many do.
Your agrument is not with anyone here. In fact, your argument is not even with God, for He brooks no argument. Your argument, as you will see, is with the worms in your casket. And theories aside, we all know who wins that one, eh?

]]> By: Dave L http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-10158 Dave L Mon, 07 May 2007 13:46:39 +0000 http://intheagora.com/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution.html#comment-10158 "At least Christians are honest enough to state their beliefs are based on faith." Poppycock...this is exactly how the religious get out of challenges to their theology. “At least Christians are honest enough to state their beliefs are based on faith.”
Poppycock…this is exactly how the religious get out of challenges to their theology.

]]> By: rob http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-10157 rob Sun, 06 May 2007 05:48:32 +0000 http://intheagora.com/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution.html#comment-10157 <em>How the first life form was generated does not further our understanding of the modern diversity of life, and therefore falls outside the questions that evolution answers.</em> Poppycock...this is exactly how Darwinists get out of challenges to their theology. At least Christians are honest enough to state their beliefs are based on faith. How the first life form was generated does not further our understanding of the modern diversity of life, and therefore falls outside the questions that evolution answers.
Poppycock…this is exactly how Darwinists get out of challenges to their theology. At least Christians are honest enough to state their beliefs are based on faith.

]]> By: Alan K. Henderson http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-10156 Alan K. Henderson Sat, 05 May 2007 02:25:54 +0000 http://intheagora.com/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution.html#comment-10156 "People today are generally taller than people centuries ago, for another instance." I thought that particulat trait was traceable to dietary changes, at least in part. I do recall (from Paul Johnson's history on America, IIRC) that American colonists were growing taller than the people in England, and that the colonists ate a lot more meat. I'm sure PETA would have something to say about this... “People today are generally taller than people centuries ago, for another instance.”
I thought that particulat trait was traceable to dietary changes, at least in part. I do recall (from Paul Johnson’s history on America, IIRC) that American colonists were growing taller than the people in England, and that the colonists ate a lot more meat.
I’m sure PETA would have something to say about this…

]]> By: Jacob http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-10155 Jacob Fri, 04 May 2007 23:47:52 +0000 http://intheagora.com/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution.html#comment-10155 <i>"It more or less shows the candidate's esteem when it comes to scientists and/or experts in fields of study and their observable facts."</i> Not necessarily. For example, I buy into evolution, but I'm unconvinced by the evidence on anthropogenic global warming. “It more or less shows the candidate’s esteem when it comes to scientists and/or experts in fields of study and their observable facts.” Not necessarily. For example, I buy into evolution, but I’m unconvinced by the evidence on anthropogenic global warming.

]]> By: Stephen http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-10154 Stephen Fri, 04 May 2007 22:07:40 +0000 http://intheagora.com/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution.html#comment-10154 "We can get chihuahua's and great danes in a few centuries time, if not less. What can we get when we expand that to a few thousand? How about ten or twenty thousand? 100,000? One million? ten million? 100 million? A billion? We humans don't have the right type of brain structure to think in terms beyond the normal span of human life, but we do observe great change over very short periods, so it's a no brainer that we get EVEN GREATER change when we really ramp up the length of time." If we lack the brain structure to think beyond spans of under a century, how in the world did you come up with that thought? “We can get chihuahua’s and great danes in a few centuries time, if not less. What can we get when we expand that to a few thousand? How about ten or twenty thousand? 100,000? One million? ten million? 100 million? A billion? We humans don’t have the right type of brain structure to think in terms beyond the normal span of human life, but we do observe great change over very short periods, so it’s a no brainer that we get EVEN GREATER change when we really ramp up the length of time.”
If we lack the brain structure to think beyond spans of under a century, how in the world did you come up with that thought?

]]> By: Michael LoPrete http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-10153 Michael LoPrete Fri, 04 May 2007 19:01:38 +0000 http://intheagora.com/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution.html#comment-10153 "To so limit the definition of evolution means that it is an incomplete theory, not worthy of such unquestioning devotion by its believers." To limit the definition of evolution is science. Any theory, like gravity or germ theory, claims only to be an explanatory filter for a specific set or type of phenomena. I don't use germ theory to explain how babies are made and I don't use the theory of gravity to better understand why some of bulbs in my office are white and others are yellowish. The theory of evolution is a filter for explaining the diversity of species that we observe; that requires a sort of biological geneology and completeness demands that we trace it as far back as possible, but that's it. How the first life form was generated does not further our understanding of the modern diversity of life, and therefore falls outside the questions that evolution answers. You are setting up false expectations as a way to discredit evolution, but in doing so you only discredit yourself. “To so limit the definition of evolution means that it is an incomplete theory, not worthy of such unquestioning devotion by its believers.”
To limit the definition of evolution is science. Any theory, like gravity or germ theory, claims only to be an explanatory filter for a specific set or type of phenomena. I don’t use germ theory to explain how babies are made and I don’t use the theory of gravity to better understand why some of bulbs in my office are white and others are yellowish. The theory of evolution is a filter for explaining the diversity of species that we observe; that requires a sort of biological geneology and completeness demands that we trace it as far back as possible, but that’s it.
How the first life form was generated does not further our understanding of the modern diversity of life, and therefore falls outside the questions that evolution answers.
You are setting up false expectations as a way to discredit evolution, but in doing so you only discredit yourself.

]]> By: Michael LoPrete http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-10152 Michael LoPrete Fri, 04 May 2007 18:52:52 +0000 http://intheagora.com/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution.html#comment-10152 "And Change over time is not enough--change over time includes Chihuahua and Great Danes." Yes, it does include those, but that shows why change over time IS enough. We can get chihuahua's and great danes in a few centuries time, if not less. What can we get when we expand that to a few thousand? How about ten or twenty thousand? 100,000? One million? ten million? 100 million? A billion? We humans don't have the right type of brain structure to think in terms beyond the normal span of human life, but we do observe great change over very short periods, so it's a no brainer that we get EVEN GREATER change when we really ramp up the length of time. “And Change over time is not enough–change over time includes Chihuahua and Great Danes.”
Yes, it does include those, but that shows why change over time IS enough. We can get chihuahua’s and great danes in a few centuries time, if not less. What can we get when we expand that to a few thousand? How about ten or twenty thousand? 100,000? One million? ten million? 100 million? A billion? We humans don’t have the right type of brain structure to think in terms beyond the normal span of human life, but we do observe great change over very short periods, so it’s a no brainer that we get EVEN GREATER change when we really ramp up the length of time.

]]> By: Frank G http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-10151 Frank G Fri, 04 May 2007 18:26:22 +0000 http://intheagora.com/2007/05/where_do_you_stand_on_evolution.html#comment-10151 Evolution and Monkeys <p> I want to know where monkeys came from. What did they evolve from? <p> If monkeys didn't evolve, then God must have created them also, along with humans (or, God created monkeys and then had us evolve from them - smile). <p> So, trace back. What is the last animal that evolved, before God decided to create the "next" one. Did some animals evolve from the other animals (and plants and bugs) that God created? <p> If some animals evolved, and others were created, why did God choose to meddle with some but not others? <p> If no animals evolved, then they were and are all created. So, there is God, creating new viruses and bacteria, just to get around antibiotics and our immune systems and kill us. A vengeful God. <p> I prefer to think of a loving God who supports evolution and doesn't go around creating things to make us miserable. </p></p></p></p></p></p> Evolution and Monkeys

I want to know where monkeys came from. What did they evolve from?

If monkeys didn’t evolve, then God must have created them also, along with humans (or, God created monkeys and then had us evolve from them – smile).

So, trace back. What is the last animal that evolved, before God decided to create the “next” one. Did some animals evolve from the other animals (and plants and bugs) that God created?

If some animals evolved, and others were created, why did God choose to meddle with some but not others?

If no animals evolved, then they were and are all created. So, there is God, creating new viruses and bacteria, just to get around antibiotics and our immune systems and kill us. A vengeful God.

I prefer to think of a loving God who supports evolution and doesn’t go around creating things to make us miserable.

]]>