Threads like this would benefit from a 'required reading' list. Both
pro and con. Save us a lot of time.

there is a whole lot more fossil evidence of different species just
apearing without any previous fossils

This thread is awesome. I totally don't believe in evolution and I
think it is encouraging to see others who don't as well. I talked a
little bit about why in another thread yesterday. It's in this religion
category too, titled "tell me about your beliefs" or something like
that. Check it out if you're interested.

Some excellent physical chemists who disagree with evolution are Michael
Behe (Lehigh University) and A.E. Wilder-Smith (Oxford, University of
Illinois, and University of Geneva). A good mathematician on the topic
is William Dembski. They all have some excellent books if you are
interested in the actual science behind this debate. Look for "Darwin's
Black Box" by Behe, "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution" by
Wilder-Smith, or "Randomness by Design" by Dembski (an essay).

I am actually working on a thesis for the philosophy department at my
school about evolution. I am a mathematics major with a minor in applied
bio and philosophy of science. I think it is important for people to
take the philosophy of science more seriously. Some excellent
philosophers on the topic are Kant, Hume, Pascal, and Leibniz.

Most people don't know the history of evolutionary and old-earth
thinking. You should look into some books by an old English geologist
Charles Lyell. He is the one who convinced Darwin that the Earth was
old. Only after this fact did Darwin attempt a cohesive explanation
about the formation of species. What's more is the Darwin had no access
to the knowledge we now have of cellular development and chemistry, each
of which contradicts evolutionary theory in a number of ways.

Lyell was a champion of a line of thought called uniformitarianism. It
basically says that since we observe things changing slowly and
gradually now, they must have always changed this way. This is applied
to geology when making the geologic column (Jurassic, Cretaceous period,
etc), it is also applied when modeling radioactive decay, applied when
using genetic sequencing to determine relatedness of species. Yet modern
society has not investigated the merits or problems of this
uniformitarian line of thought. There is no "evidence" that thinking
this way leads to right conclusions. Science can't provide that kind of
evidence.

Anyway, at the risk of being much too long winded, I'll stop. I would
encourage anyone thinking about evolution to look into the books and
sources named above. There's a lot more work their to be done than most
scientists (who happen to have a particular religious agenda) want you
to believe.

sounds interesting..thanx

Evolution is stupid?

wow.

Is DNA stupid?

Evolution is a scientific fact, it is a progression of developement. Not
too miraculous to believe that species adapt, evolve to survive.

What would be miraculous or unbelievable would be a man turning water to
wine, parting a sea, healing the lame...etc.

We believe the miricles of Christ but not the flat facts of life?

Open a text book, please educate yourself! Rocks are made of matter
(atoms) they do not have one single cell and of course to not become a
living organism. Evolution is really fascinating, too bad you know
nothing of it. Why people insist on living in the dark ages...I do not
know. Is the world flat as well?

the world isnt flat?it is in my atlas..

Nus, I think you meant Desmond Morris ("The Naked Ape"). Excellent
book, by the way.

Correct! (ed) BF Skinner was the sociologist.

What matter-I thought Lightofoot and Ussher had this figured out 400
years ago when they calculated the earth was born somewhere around 4004
BC.

Hey jax!

Cute: I'll give you that darlin.

Abra, I did not delve into it that deeply. So, I guess I mis spoke. Of
course there is fact to some evolution. But, that we came from monkeys
or some other animal ( I even saw where they were playing with the
theory of us coming from sharks or allegators or something.)
I will retract my statement of evolution being ALL theory.
I was really implying my belief about man theory of evolution.

Kat

hey katie

Hey you two beautiful people. Lookin good.
Kat

Kat wrote:
" But, that we came from monkeys or some other animal"

Well if we evolved out of the earth (which I’m thoroughly convinced that
we did) then we necessarily evolved from ape-like ancestors, and they in
turn had evolved like monkey-like ancestors, and so on all the way down
to the primordial muck.

At one point our very distance ancestors were rodent-like, so ultimately
we’re just a bunch of rats and we act like it too. We did not evolve
from the dinosaurs or birds, that was a different line altogether.

People turn their nose up to this because they don’t like to think that
we evolved from monkey-like animals. But why not? What’s so shameful
about that? I think it’s amazing. To me that’s a real miracle.

I accept god however god works. If god wanted to create us from monkeys
why not? How is being created from dust any better?

Well, as you know.

TwilightsTwin:

The argument from DNA is a very dangerous one. Genetic sequencing is a
superficial way of comparing relatedness. It is just as superficial as
saying that a bat and a bird should be closely related because they both
have wings. There has been no attempt by mainstream biologists to
incorporate algebraic coding theory into genetic sequencing. As a
result, these biologists are going nuts over something that is
completely unfounded. The simple mathematical idea of information
entropy prevents a code from being generated by non-code. It would be
impossible to "interpret" DNA (i.e. RNA translation, ribosome
manipulation, all of the electron-motive force found in photosynthesis,
and DNA, etc). All of that would be absurdly impossible unless you
recognize the insane degree of coded information contained therein. This
information, mathematically speaking, cannot be the result of
non-information.

This is what frustrates me so much. So many people think that just
because this is written in some text book somewhere that it's true.
Think for yourself! Don't be spoonfed inadequate descriptions of the
complexity of life. There are, mathematically speaking, not enough
probabilistic resources for evolution to be scientifically tenable.
Whether biologists agree or disagree, this is a mathematical problem
that has to be studied and resolved mathematically. It's all about the
teleonomy present in the genetic code. Coding theory clearly explains
that this phenomenon cannot be rationally attributed to random processes
alone.

In short, a textbook does not solve this problem. You've got to think
for yourself. If a religious person told you that Jonah survived being
swallowed by a whale merely because it was written in the Bible, you'd
be right in being skeptical. Likewise, you should be skeptical of
anything written in a science textbook.

Crap!!!!

Well as you know, I do believe in the Bible, and try and understand it.
Therefore I cannot in good conscience even give thought to any of that
nonsense(my opinion, and the only word that came to mind). I have read
nowhere that we were supposedly evolved from anything else, in that
book. I cannot even try and be embarrassed or feel ugly or silly or
ashamed of that theory, cause it doesn't exist for me.
Now, if they bring out a boneyard of proof that shows man and ape, or
anything else for that matter, in a stage of evolving from a to b. Then
and only then will I care to see it, or give thought to it's existance.
I am always happy to hear from everyone on their thoughts and beliefs
on everything.

Kat

Déjà Vu!!!

Unbelievable, in 2007 ???

Abra, help!!!

I think they're right.

Humans haven't evolved one darn bit!!!

Kat wrote:
“Well as you know, I do believe in the Bible”

Why?

I mean to believe in evolution you require irrefutable proof, and you
aren’t even aware of what proof actually exists.

But you’re more than happy to base your entire life on a book that has
absolutely no proof behind it whatsoever.

Makes no sense to me. But if that’s how you like to do things I respect
your freedom to believe however you wish.

elyspears wrote:
“Coding theory clearly explains that this phenomenon cannot be
rationally attributed to random processes
alone.”

Whoever said that evolution was caused by random processes alone? If
you believe that then you just aren’t well educated on how evolution
works.

elyspears wrote:
“cellular development and chemistry, each of which contradicts
evolutionary theory in a number of ways.”

Could you be more specific concerning exactly what these contradictions
are?

OMgosh...

You mean my belief is stupid.

EEEEEK I must speak in my native tounge.

OINK OINK Grunt snort snort OINK.