There may be hope for us yet...

[cb360]

http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/reli ... ration.htm

[ZooTech]

Speak for yourself.

[Sev]

Hehe, "looks like we got it wrong, now it's time to backtrack and reinterpret the bible to so that it actually says what science currently believes."

[ronboskz650sr]

Except for that pesky missing link...might want to find that first, since everyone wants definitive proof of what we believe. Put your money where your scientific mouth is evolutionists. Prove evolution. Good luck. We'll be happy to walk through all the holes in the theory. After all, we owe you no less. On second thought...it's really a waste of time. You'll believe it without the proof. And we'll accept that fact. Just because some religious types are caving to the pressure doesn't mean all believers will.

[Chris8187]

The problem is really macroevolution. Anyone who rejects microevolution shows real ignorance.

[Sev]

Given enough time water will carve the grand canyon. I have a feeling this is just the start.

[ronboskz650sr]

The problem is really macroevolution. Anyone who rejects microevolution shows real ignorance.

I agree, sort of...it's worth mentioning that some scientists do reject both theories. Some highly intelligent non-scientists do too. It's difficult to say "anyone who" and avoid the criticism of the opposite viewpoint...that's been my experience right here on this board when I even approach the possibility of someone thinking that's what I meant by what I write. The safe words are "some folks, many people, and In my opinion..."

Of course, Evolutionists will, never jump on you for that statement. Christians probably won't either...but being in the minority...we will be pounced on if we even get close to lumping everyone else into any sort of categorical all-inclusive statement. After all, what is the definition of "real ignorance?" Here's an example...I have forgotten more about global navigation than most people will ever know. I know many other things as well. I refuse to believe the overall concept underlying evolution because it requires no creator. I am not ignorant...and I can prove it. Still, having a belief system that submits me to a creator makes me target for every offended non-believer to take a pot shot at.

So I guess Acknowledging the possibility of a concept of "microevolution" really doesn't matter. It's the big picture theory that remains a theory, but is gaining momentum because it removes accountability to a creator.

That's why I say prove it. Everyone wants us to prove creation. Every single aspect of evolution can be explained scientifically within the theory of creation too (at least as positively as evolutionists do it.) Christians don't need a new theory that doesn't include God. Many other people seem to.

That looks like alot of work to get that number of signatures but it isn't a very big percentage of the population, especially in the age of the internet. Big deal.

[ZooTech]

The problem is really macroevolution. Anyone who rejects microevolution shows real ignorance.

That's true. A lot of evolutionists I have spoken with have thrown down genetics and adaptation as proof of evolution. Thing is, you can breed two mutts and generations later end up with a Jack Russel Terrier...but it's still a dog. And it's a dog with less genetic information at that. Hardly a leap forward in the evolutionary process. No matter what the external influence is...climate, food supply, isolation...that causes a bird to develop this or that difference, it still never results in an increase in genetic information...information necessary to progress forward (even slowly) toward a more highly evolved species. And it is this very obvious hole in the theory that led some to come up with the "Hopeful Monster Theory". Of course, once they realized that even if a lizard laid an egg that hatched into a bird, the bird would have no one to mate with...well...the theory quickly went away. And to date there has been no satisfactory explanation for all the missing transitional species, save for a few desperate attempts to pass ricket-stricken human bones off as ape men.

C'mon, guys....the root of this whole debate is the fact that a Creator scares the crap out of you. The idea that we will actually be held accountable for our lives is too much to bear. And so, all too many wallow in denial and live this life as though it's all we've got. But when you stop to consider the complexity of the human body alone, never mind the eco-system and the complexities of human thought and emotions, it really does take far more faith to believe it all happened over time and by chance and didn't come from an intelligent Creator. Evolution dates the arrival of plants and animals, who cannot live absent from the symbiotic relationships they share, millions of years apart. How can that be? How did these plants and animals reproduce before their counterpart even existed? It's unbelievable the lengths human beings will go to convince themselves that we got here by our own means and are therefore accountable only to ourselves and whatever society we establish to live in.

[CNF2002]

Great...another religious discussion.

You cant go on thinking the world is flat forever reinterpret or your religion fails when it becomes too obviously ridiculous.

C'mon, guys....the root of this whole debate is the fact that a Creator scares the "crumb" out of you. The idea that we will actually be held accountable for our lives is too much to bear.

That must be it Yer so cute

I think you should just be thankful for your beliefs and worship your gods instead of worrying about other people and some magical voodoo land.

[Sev]

That doesn't really make much sense to me Zootech, because all animals have what is essentially the same amount of DNA. Evolution isn't progression to a "higher state of being." It's the alteration of one form into one better suited for it's environment.

If you were to take a large group of tigers and drop it in an aquatic environment where their only source of food is wter based. Over time it can be assumed one of two things will happen:

1) They are all incapable of catching food and die

2) The tigers that are best able to catch food will survive and breed. Perhaps they have bigger feet and can swim better. Maybe they're skinnier and can move through the water better. Doesn't matter. The point is that over time the specimens that are best suited to the environment will survive and breed, leading to more animals that are better suited to the environment and able to breed.

That is evolution. Those that are best suited to the time and place will survive and pass on their genetic code. Not an increase in the amount of data, but a refinement in it's structure.