Human skull found by Mars rover!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Kaon

I'm still trying to figure out why the two can't be combined. I'll say I believe in Creationism, but I think it's stupid to deny that evolution doesn't exist.

No, actually, you can't believe in creationism and evolution simultaneously. Creationism is different than theism. The latter is a belief in God; the former is a belief in the scientific veracity of the Genesis Creation Myths, and is founded squarely on the 19th century doctrine of biblical inerrency.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by WCE

Iowa_Flames_Fan;

You are a scholar and a gentleman, and it is a pleasure to read you.

Why, thank you! The feeling's mutual.

I'd like to extend some props to Textcritic as well, for giving us what ought to be the last word on this topic:

###:

Quite frankly, there is no challenge to the validity of the scientific theory of the origins of life from ancient Christian literature, simply by virtue of the fact that such literature is incapable of mounting a rebuttal of any science because it is all pre-scientific.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Out of curiosity, what's the difference between evolutionary theory and Darwinian evolutionary theory, the way you see it? I'm just wondering; I'm no expert, but as far as I know the doctrine of natural selection and speciation, which are the two basic tenets of Darwinian thought, are still the basic paradigms through which evolution occurred.

Darwin has evolved though...or his teaching has. I can't pinpoint exact names and such...but we never really focused on Darwinism in biology class.

Evolution has expanded into broader terms...a broader definition...and some people have yet to realize that.

Also, one point of clarification: we didn't "come from" apes. We ARE Apes. Just a pet peeve.

Fair enough.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by WCE

Iowa_Flames_Fan;

You are a scholar and a gentleman, and it is a pleasure to read you.

I second that. Any thread he is involved in is a pleasure to read.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Fair enough. But the general precepts of natural selection and speciation are the same, no? Don't we just have more sophisticated ways of understanding the mechanisms by which those work?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Even if the final outcome is the same the mechanism by which natural selection is still a very important part of the theory and one in which Darwin could not explain.

Also genetic drift and mutation, both vital parts of evolution, could not have been part of Darwins theory. In fact if all mutation ceased than evolution would also... so I'd say thats an important factor.

His theory would have fallen completely apart if it wasn't for William Hamilton in the 1950s (maybe 1960s). In his book 'the origin of species' Darwin discussed a potentially fatal flaw in his theory. He could not explain altruistic behavior- where an individual, at a major cost to themselves, helps another individual to reproduce. I'm not going into the explanation of this as it requires alot of genetics and math. Hamilton's paper on this was the most important one since Darwins book.

Genetics is vital to evolution and is the biggest difference between Darwin evolution and the modern view.

Also, it should be noted that Darwin didn't 'invent' natural selection. It was a common idea before him, but he elaborated on it alot.

[RedMan12]

If you don't believe in life on Mars that means the beast got you.

[Thunderball]

I think its impossible to argue evolution. Its so apparent, its not even funny.

I think a lot of moderate christians or sympathizers get upset when people get on their soapbox and declare that this is the nail in the coffin of monotheism. All it proves is that the Bible isn't totally factually accurate. Most mainstream and moderate Christians (or any other religions who believe in a deity or deities), would agree that its not, nor is it meant to be.

To me, the Bible is like alcohol... its a good thing that can improve one's perceptions on life, but if you drink from it too much and come to rely on it solely, it can become poison to themselves and those around them. Conversely, those who dedicate their lives to decrying any of its possible value and what not are typically are missing out on something and look rather foolish to those who simply view it as a book of stories that can improve one's life, or even as a potential collections of stories loosely pertaining to a religious phenomenon, let alone a Messiah, that occured approximately 2000 years ago. No offense to anyone who's really devout, that's just the sum conclusion of my 7 or so years of studying religions.

The creation story is purely metaphor. When God creates man on the 7th "day", that could easily mean that after 6 "days" (meaning millions and millions of years), our Simian forebearers attained a level of evolution where they could be "in thy image." With that, Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden are simply a story of the perils of temptation and the human predilection to be driven by passions, rather than reason.

As for the Mars thing... that's really cool. Its probably just a rock, but it could very well be a human or some sort of primate-esque creature that existed on Mars countless millions of years ago... either way, should make for some good science and have no bearing on the God v. Science arguments that many seem compelled to have.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Jake

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Even if the final outcome is the same the mechanism by which natural selection is still a very important part of the theory and one in which Darwin could not explain.

Also genetic drift and mutation, both vital parts of evolution, could not have been part of Darwins theory. In fact if all mutation ceased than evolution would also... so I'd say thats an important factor.

I don't think we disagree, actually. What I was doing was asking a question of a poster (Azure) who made a distinction between "Evolutionary theory" and "Darwinism." I wasn't being a smarty-pants, just asking what he meant, since the implication I took from that (rightly or wrongly) was that "Darwinism" is more vulnerable to attack from creationists.

My comment was "aren't these mechanisms within the same paradigm of how evolution functions?" I read your response as "yes, but those mechanisms are important." But it's not at all analogous to the difference between, say, Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, at least AFAIK.

[Jake]

Sorry, I didn't read Azures post so I mis-understood the question. I thought you were asking what the is difference between Darwinism and the modern view of evolution. As you now know (or may have already known) the answer is genetics lol

In my opinion I don't think one theory is more vulnerable to debate. Like you said much of the modern theory has actually enforced Darwinism by explaining why natural selection happens at a molecular level.

If creationists go after Darwinism and ignore modern theory, its kind of like racing a 1960 Ferrari in a Ford Focus- you can beat it, but the 2007 Ferrari would still kick your ass ... after reading that I've decided I'm not good at analogies.