It’s hard to believe that all this incredible creation came about through evolution, but many do, and if they are right in their beliefs, then evolution is the Creator. Evolution is therefore God. Darwinian believers wouldn’t put it in those words, but that’s the truth. Whoever or whatever created all things is the Creator (God).
Idolatry (making up your own god) is nothing new for human beings. We gravitate to it. The nations that surrounded Israel continually made up their own gods, and that’s why God said in the First of the Ten Commandments, “I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.”
The reason the evolutionist makes up his own god is that his own God-given reason tells him that creation had a Creator. And evolution fits the bill for him. He loves evolution with all of his heart, mind, soul and strength because it gave him life itself, and all of life’s pleasures. But he loves it for one more reason. His idol has no moral dictates. It satisfies his intellectual need for a Creator, but it doesn’t tell him how to live his life. Evolution is the modern day golden calf. It’s a dumb idol. All the believer need do is bow down in faith, say, “I believe in evolution,” and that deals with his problem of sin, of guilt and consequently of any thought of Judgment Day. It’s the ultimate delusion.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The Identity of Evolution
207 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 207 Newer› Newest»Well, at least there isn't any quote mining in this post. When is that evolution book coming out?
"rufus said...Well, at least there isn't any quote mining in this post. When is that evolution book coming out?"
Rufus...about six weeks. This is from the Preface:
This book will no doubt be seen by some as being guilty “quote mining.” This is the practice of taking a quote (often out of its context), and using it in a way that was never intended by the author. However, every gold nugget is legitimately mined out of its context. No one seriously values the earth that encases the gold. So, when I uncover an evolutionary expert quietly admitting that he has no evidence to back up his theory, I don’t see any value in the soil of his surrounding words. I merely extract what I believe is of value for those who want to discover the truth about the theory of evolution.
If evolution is true why are they so worried and the arguments so emotionaly charged? Evolution is the big complex story they expect us to believe while calling Christian fathers liers. Christianity teaches us not to lie on the other hand evolutionists have no reason to tell the truth I am sure atheists will be all over this one they hate it when we are right. The truth is I love micro evolution I call it adaptation lets make one thing clear you cannot expect me to believe adap[tation was by blind chance you expect us to accept this theory that is far more irrational than a belief in God. It makes perfect sence to think that such a mechanism as adaptation can be accounted for as created then by blind chance. Atheists please look at what you believe put your emotions aside let your mind be open and see how such an elaborate thing as blind chance is more irrational than God. I can have intellectual satsfaction in God and Science because Science done right leads to God.
btw great post Ray
Ray--
It’s hard to believe that all this incredible creation came about through evolution, but many do, and if they are right in their beliefs, then evolution is the Creator. Evolution is therefore God. Darwinian believers wouldn’t put it in those words, but that’s the truth. Whoever or whatever created all things is the Creator (God).
I'm not aware of any evolutionists that have said they believe Darwin's theory of evolution created the universe. Or that Darwin's TOE created the laws of physics.
Christians: If you just lap up what Rays says about evolution, then you're officially stupid.
Well, Mr. Comfort, I certainly didn't think you'd publish my name and address. But I did forget to put that link in the post. Now I get to see what kind of mail I receive :-).
In rereading your post: but you're not uncovering an evolutionary expert quietly admitting he has no evidence to back up his theory. That's why it's called quote mining. I don't know why you and others resort to it. You're either very ignorant about it, or just plain dishonest. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt (unlike Brian in this thread who says evolutionists have no reason to tell the truth) but you continue doing it. It saddens me. By the way; what do you think of people like John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins, who don't deny evolution, among other things, but accept Jesus? Or are they not "true" Christians because they don't deny evolution?
Brian: Chance is a factor, but it's not the same as natural selection, and natural selection is not "random". But then, I'm a liar and you're not.
""Christians: If you just lap up what Rays says about evolution, then you're officially stupid.""
My wife & I have been called worse, we would rather be officially stupid than separated from our Creator.
Captin Howdy,
Lol! Nicely said friend.
captain howdy said...
Christians: If you just lap up what Rays says about evolution, then you're officially stupid.
Oh Captain My Captain, thank you for telling me this. I didn't realize that you were the official judge on intellect. I guess that very possibly you are just a more developed form of the human race. If your official decree is correct, then the atheists will not have to worry about the Christians b/c in 10 billion more years, our weakness will be snuffed out on this Earth. Maybe our "stupid" genes will just be disposed of through natural selection and the evolutionary process.
And for the record, the Creator of this Universe is the One that we listen to concerning how the Earth came about and how animal life came about, etc., etc. God says all we need to know about evolution in His account of Creation.
Ray:
It is, perhaps, comparable to a sculptor making a statue. The block of stone with which he starts looks nothing like his vision. But, by chipping away the unwanted bits, he arrives at something like he imagined at the start. Of course, removing context to change the meaning of a quote (quote mining) is a type of lying.
Captain
I have been studying Evolution for years and to be honest I don't need Ray to refute Evolution. Ray I mean you no disrespect I know you don't claim to be an expert in it and I hope you take no offense to that. Now I do read Michale Behe, Alister McGrath to name a few. Calling people stupid doesn't validate your argument it actualy shows you have none. I will say if you get upset about quotes maybe it's the Scientists that make those quotes you get upset about.
Brian my brother, I hope all is well with you.
I'd venture to say that the reason some non-Christians get so worked up over the evolution discussion is that the scientific point of view is so frequently misrepresented by those Christians who disagree with it. For example, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that it's impossible for adaptation to occur by "blind chance." Good, because that is exactly what evolutionary thought says. Genetic changes occur by chance, but natural selection, that which determines which randomly generated traits will flourish and increase in a given population, is anything but random. For example, if larger size proves to be an advantage in a given environment, then size will very non-randomly be selected for in successive generations. That is to say, in a given generation, the biggest members of a population will tend to leave more offspring. In the next generation, there will be more offpring that are bigger, and fewer small ones. So once again, natural selection will tend to favor the survival of the larges members of this poplulation. And so on, usually up to the point where an increase in size no longer provides an advantage or just stops being physically practical. That's a simplification, and change doesn't happen quite that quickly, but you get the idea.
I suppose that what may cause some confusion is that natural selection, while not random, is also not directed. In other words, nature has no goal. Species aren't all trying to achieve some "higher" or "better" state. They're simply making do with existing structures and changing to meet current needs. The panda's thumb is a classic case in point. Pandas appear to have thumb that they use to grip the bamboo that they eat, but all they really have is an extention of a wrist bone that's serving the place of a true thumb. It's a makeshift solution, but it works well enough. Most adapatations, in fact, are better explained as makeshift solutions, and not as a result of careful, planned design.
Anyway, before I go into an even longer explanation -- and I'm not a biologist, so my explanation, while correct in its essence, could probably be done better by someone else -- I'll just repeat my main point. Non-Chritians who accept and understand evolutionary theory do so by an examination of the facts, and if they see those facts being misrepresented and misunderstood, then they naturally would like to correct those misunderstandings. And believe me, every single objection I've ever heard to evolutionary theory has been based on misunderstanding of the facts and misstatements.
And Ray, not so nice publishing someone's full name and address on a public internet forum. I beleive rufus passed that information on to you with an expectation that you'd respect his privacy. In fact, he says so quite explicity. You should show the decency to take that comment down.
The elasticity of words is simply remarkable. That you should be able to take a field of scientific endeavor and so convincingly misrepresent it to those that unquestioningly digest your proclamations - well it is a testament to the fine line you tread twixt ignorance and falsehood.
"Evolution is therefore God"
er..only if you believe in the need to have such a concept as God in the first place. Occams razor suggests to me that Evolution is simply .... Evolution.
And by the way as is often the case with people who attempt to deny Evolution you are mixing up the FACT of evolution with the theory of Darwinian Natural Selection.
Darwinism explains the fact of evolution. No one but a fool would deny the fact of evolution. The evidence is overwhelming. the Theory of natural selection has been refined over the years and is currently the only theory that appears to explain the FACT of evolution.
Ayrshire Blog
"Evolution is therefore God."
Only if you feel the need to believe in a concept such as God or a creator!
My trusty Occams razor tells me that Evolution is simply ....Evolution.
Evolution is a fact - and supported by overwhelming evidence. Many people ( and I think you are doing this) mix up the FACT of Evolution with the Theory of Darwinian natural selection.
The theory of Darwnian Natural Selection has been tested over and over again against the evidence and is the only theory that substantially explains the FACT of Evolution.
Trying to deny Evolution is like denying that the sun rises each day. Challenging the Darwinian explanation for evolution is fine - provided you can cite evidence and that you can provide an alternative explanatory and testable theory ( That's science). Creationists and ID'ers fail on these counts.
There's no problem having a debate on these issues but please try not to confuse the FACT of Evolution with the Theopry which explains it - which is Darwinian natural selection.
Thank you for the chance to comment.
(I left a link in my last comment so had to repost)
Ray,
You just admitted that each quote is OUT OF CONTEXT. This was shown earlier on your blog THREE TIMES. Are you capable of honesty??? I'm sure I could demonstrate that your entire book is a fraud. This could be the topic of a blog in itself; and an embarrassment to you. I am a biologist and write scientifically. The quotes you take are RHETORICAL DEVICES to interest the reader by what seems an insoluble problem......to be followed by a thorough explanation.
For instance, when someone says something like "Transitional forms in the thorapsid dinosaur lineage have been completely lacking", you are likely to quote that as evidence against evolution, yet you would fail to present the remainder, "The current discoveries have greatly enhanced our understanding of the evolution of this lineage...".
This is precisely what creationists do, I have exposed them repeatedly. I know your tactics. If you are so confident that these writers meant what you claim, send me a copy for a skeptical read, I'll even send it back to you in pristine condition.
"Evolution is the modern day golden calf. It’s a dumb idol. All the believer need do is bow down in faith, say, “I believe in evolution,” and that deals with his problem of sin, of guilt and consequently of any thought of Judgment Day. It’s the ultimate delusion."
Ray, this is not true, evolution is not just some faith proposition, it's not a guess. It is a powerful construct which unites every field of biology, makes accurate predictions that can be and have been and continue to be tested. We now understand how "macroevolutionary" change occurrs at the level of the gene during development. We are on the verge of a new synthesis uniting development, population genetics, and genomics. Many scientists that recognize evolution also believe in the Christian god. Every one of my mentors in science were and are Christians (much to my surprise). Evolution does not necessarily equal atheism. I personally was a Christian through much of my training, it was the reading of philosophy and the Bible itself and much contemplation that led me to atheism. Evolution is a fact that is beyond reasonable dispute given the evidence.
Sagan once said,
"The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true."
I await your reply regarding the book.
Evolution smevolution...blaa blaa blaa...whats important here anyway?
I think a lot of people could not care any less about the theory.
Why would anyone try SO hard to even study it/prove it unless the are looking for a loop hole. I have better things to do.
-SM
This is for capt. howdy:
ray said:
"It satisfies his intellectual need for a Creator, but it doesn’t tell him how to live his life."
Capt, that really does sum it up for evolutionists. If true Christianity just taught that 'our God exists and He loves you but hey, no big deal if you deny Him' then I doubt any of you atheists or evolutionists would even bother coming to this sight.
The fact is that you do not want to be told how to live your life and what is right and wrong.
Admit it.
If it takes being 'stupid' to humble one's self before God and plead for mercy then I thank God I am 'stupid'.
Great post Ray!
Bill
Sorry Ray, but those of us who understand evolution wouldn't "put it in those words" that "evolution is god" because that's just plain bollocks.
:-)
Love and peace,
-Skippy
I have a question for evolutionists. When you hear that 52 people as a result of the tornadoes on February 5th or that people died in a school shooting, how does that make you feel?
As an evolutionist I would think you have some sort of joy or relief that there are now fewer members of our species with which you have to compete.
As a result there will be more available food, possibly some job openings, maybe less children to use up resources. If college students were killed then that would mean less competition in the future. After all, this is survival of the fittest.
Thanks.
Evolution smevolution...blaa blaa blaa...whats important here anyway?
I think a lot of people could not care any less about the theory.
Why would anyone try SO hard to even study it/prove it unless the are looking for a loop hole. I have better things to do.
-SM
Ask that question the next time you get a flu shot....particularly given the impending Avian flu pandemic. There are many other reasons to understand evolution and analogues of natural selection in our own body...particularly cancer immunology.
"I have a question for evolutionists. When you hear that 52 people as a result of the tornadoes on February 5th or that people died in a school shooting, how does that make you feel?
As an evolutionist I would think you have some sort of joy or relief that there are now fewer members of our species with which you have to compete.
As a result there will be more available food, possibly some job openings, maybe less children to use up resources. If college students were killed then that would mean less competition in the future. After all, this is survival of the fittest.
Thanks."
Evolutionary theory is a construct which brings together observations and mathematical models from all fields of biology. I don't know what it is to be an "evolutionist". It is not a school of philosophy, nor is it a moral framework. It is a description of nature. Also, it is a common misconception to think that the theory means "survival of the fittest" in the sense of "kill off all the competition". That is not what it says; and not what species do. There is tremendous intra and interspecies cooperation and symbiosis. There is also parasitism...there are many modes of life.
You ask people who accept the reality of evolution what they think about the school shooting. I cannot speak for anyone except myself. This horrifies me. These people are mentally ill, cowardly and have inflicted lifelong trauma on the people in that room, their families and society. These people are monsters. That's what I think.
Ray wrote:
"It’s hard to believe that all this incredible creation came about through evolution,"
People who do not know what evolution is, and what the scientific backing of the theory is often make statements of incredulity. It is out of sheer ignorance of science and the theory that they do this, and whatever they say beyond that will usually be misinformed opinion.
Ray wrote:
"but many do, and if they are right in their beliefs, then evolution is the Creator."
Again, you are mischaracterizing the theory and science. Evolution does not state that it is a creator. In fact, it is NEUTRAL on the position of a creator. You can accept evolution and still believe in God, because Evolution is merely what DNA does via the process of mixing gene pools, mutations due to various circumstances, and the passing on of traits. Evolution does not posit a creation, only what happens to life after it is created. This is why so many modern scientists have no problem with evolution and their Christian beliefs -- but of course, they tend not to be biblical literalists, which is why.
Imagine if you would, that God's method of creating you and I were not just some "poof and there you are" type of thing, but a more slow process that took millions of years of God guiding nature. IN my opinion, if I were a beleiver, it would make me think that God was very patient and put a lot of work, taking millions of years to create us.
Ray wrote:
"Evolution is therefore God. Darwinian believers wouldn’t put it in those words, but that’s the truth. Whoever or whatever created all things is the Creator (God)."
As I said, Evolution leaves plenty of room for god, and I do not know of anyone who thinks of evolution as "the creator". Nobody worships the petri dish, flask, and graduated cylendar as a holy trinity.
Ray wrote:
"Idolatry (making up your own god) is nothing new for human beings. We gravitate to it."
Then please SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. I do not create any gods, for I do not believe in the very concept of them. Though some humans are stuck in an older mode of thinking, and feel a need to create gods to worship, not all people gravitate towards this. People who are rational do not invent gods or accept the concept of the supernatural.
Ray wrote:
"The reason the evolutionist makes up his own god is that his own God-given reason tells him that creation had a Creator. And evolution fits the bill for him."
This does not speak for all of the Christians who are scientists, who accept evolutionary theory, and who see evolution as the way God created things, or the way God fine tunes things. It also does not speak for all the people who are atheists, accept evolution, and do not believe in the concept of the supernatural, and who do not worship anything in any way that can be described as religious. This is sounding like a classic case of a straw man argument.
Ray wrote:
"He loves evolution with all of his heart, mind, soul and strength because it gave him life itself, and all of life’s pleasures. But he loves it for one more reason. His idol has no moral dictates. It satisfies his intellectual need for a Creator, but it doesn’t tell him how to live his life. Evolution is the modern day golden calf. It’s a dumb idol. All the believer need do is bow down in faith, say, “I believe in evolution,” and that deals with his problem of sin, of guilt and consequently of any thought of Judgment Day. It’s the ultimate delusion."
Unfortunately, your explanation probably sounds good to you and your fellow believers, but it's ultimately just your own straw-man fantasy about what you would prefer people like me believe. Being able to explain us away as just another religion puts us on a level playing field in your eyes, and if we're just worshipping a false god and following a false religion, then you can just use your trump card of "We Christians follow the one true way, and all others are false". Rather than actually ASK US WHAT WE THINK, and gather information, you make up this self-serving straw-man explanation that ignores us, and attempts to tell us what "what we really believe, but will not admit", presumably because we are all satanic liars who would never give you an honest answer about what we think. It's just another shallow way for you avoid the honest way of establishing a two-way dialog. You presume to know all about us, to the extent that we are allegedly unqualified to explain our views in our own words.
So I have a question, Ray. Do you REALLY think that you know what we unbelievers think, better than we do ourselves?
@david w irish
"So I have a question, Ray. Do you REALLY think that you know what we unbelievers think, better than we do ourselves?"
I believe the Bible (God's Word) is absolutely true about what it says concerning your thoughts.. and your heart. Ray, and others like myself, are simply trying to convey that message.
You are deceiving yourself about God not existing. Why? Because it eases your conscience and allows you to justify your sinful life that you are living in rebellion against Him.
Bill
Does using the word 'straw-man' now automatically validate someone's post???
Its becoming such a popular word on this blog -on both sides.
Bill
"Ask that question the next time you get a flu shot...."
Uh..never had one. But if God leads me to get one I will thank Him. I could also thank Him for the promise of 1st Cor 10:13. That seems to apply here.
-SM
Brian said:
"If evolution is true why are they so worried and the arguments so emotionaly charged?"
What example of "emotionally charged" arguments have we made? I mean, I've approached every scientific issue presented here with the cold, analytical style and logic -- my arguments against the misinformation presented by creationists are pretty straightforward and matter of fact. I usually just post links to facts (well, not here, because Ray doesn't allow people to post links to other websites), or simply re-iterate wha tthe current scientific consensus is.
Brian said:
"Evolution is the big complex story they expect us to believe while calling Christian fathers liers."
The only people I call liars are people who lie. When Ken Ham or Kent Hovind makes up facts, or claims that a certain scientist backs up their claims, when in fact, they said the opposite, I simply point it out. Most of the creationist authors and speakers whose material is used are easily found to be liars, once you do the research. I did a project in college over 20 years ago, where I simply took Scot Huse's book "The collapse of Evolution" and followed the amble footnotes that he provided at the end of each chapter. IN the end, I found that when the footnotes were not self-referential (Scott Huse quoting himself to back up himself, or Huse quoting another creationist, who in turn was quoting Huse), and were from other scientists working as biologists, they tended to not say what he claimed. For example, he quoted Stephen Jay Gould who allegedly said that there are no transitional fossils. When I looked up the same magazine and same article that Huse footnoted, on the very page listed in his footnotes, Gould said no such thing. In fact, Gould was actually paraphrasing a creationist, then went on to write why he disagreeed with that statement.
Huse's book was so full of that, that I began to buy more creationist books, and found essentially that they all do that. Henry Morris, William Davidheiser, Ken Ham (Ken ham's books contain almost nothing more than his own opinions,and very little in the way of actual research), Kent Hovind, Duaine Gish, and others, all do this exact same kind of quote altering and mischaracterizations of other people. It is a very dishonest thing to do, because it is a form of lying.
However, my initial response to most creationist claims is to simply correct whatever mistakes people write, and simply write wha tthe scientific consensus is on an issue. If allowed to post links here, I would even provide links to back up what I say.
Brian said:
"Christianity teaches us not to lie on the other hand evolutionists have no reason to tell the truth I am sure atheists will be all over this one they hate it when we are right."
IN terms of scientific issues, I have not seen any of you post anything that is correct yet. Whenever creationists speak of evolution, it is usually erroneous from the first sentence. I'll never argue what your Bible says (except when your paraphrasing of it is incorrect, such as the "science confirms the Bible" thread) -- I'll give you your faith, and let you speak for yourself -- but when you speak of science, and you get it all wrong, I offer correction.
Brian said:
"The truth is I love micro evolution I call it adaptation lets make one thing clear you cannot expect me to believe adap[tation was by blind chance you expect us to accept this theory that is far more irrational than a belief in God."
That's because, for the umpteenth time, NO PROCESS IN SCIENCE OPERATES BY CHANCE. Anyone who claims that Evolution posits a RANDOM, CHANCE, or ACCIDENTAL process is simply wrong. In science we work with PROBABILTY. Rolling Dice and playing cards are about PROBABILITY, not about randomness. Everything in science is driven by cause and effect. Nothing in nature happens without specific factors causing it. The "natural selection" of evolution is merely the mixing of traits and genes from different pools, and having factors like diet, predation, radiation, and various other circumstances affect the genes that get passed on to the next generation.
Brian said:
"It makes perfect sence to think that such a mechanism as adaptation can be accounted for as created then by blind chance. Atheists please look at what you believe put your emotions aside let your mind be open and see how such an elaborate thing as blind chance is more irrational than God."
Yes -- it is irrational, but that is not what evolution states at all. Trust me on this, science does not claim that evolution is a random process. Nothing in science is random. Random does not exist in the real world -- it is a totally human-invented concept.
Brian said:
"I can have intellectual satsfaction in God and Science because Science done right leads to God."
Well, that's what a lot of scientists say -- and they accept evolution, and do not think of it as random. Your problem is not that evolution is wrong. Your problem is that your conception of evolution is based on misinformation and incorrect science.
Clostridium ,
Thanks for your response.
An evolutionist is someone who puts his faith in the "neither proven nor provable" (Sir Arthur Keith) theory of evolution .
MIke and Lizette wrote:
"My wife & I have been called worse, we would rather be officially stupid than separated from our Creator."
I don't think that acceptance of evolution means that you have to give up your faith. MOst of the information that Ray and other creationists write is laced with misinformation, incorrect quoting, incorrect paraphrasing, and just plain ignorance of science. As I wrote -- plenty of scientists who still call themselves christians also accept evolution as a fact. They simply see it as the way god works.
Once you discard all the incorrect material about evolution, and deal only with the actual scientific facts, it actually is an elegant theory which does what few theories ever do -- CONVERGE several bodies of science. If evolution were not true, it would not have caused any convergence in chemistry, biology, and other branches of science.
Mark wrote:
"I have a question for evolutionists. When you hear that 52 people as a result of the tornadoes on February 5th or that people died in a school shooting, how does that make you feel?"
How does it make you feel?, Mark? I mean, isn't it HUMAN to empathize with others?
Mark wrote:
"As an evolutionist I would think you have some sort of joy or relief that there are now fewer members of our species with which you have to compete."
Is that what we are supposed to think because we accept evolution? I never knew that, Mark. I thought that as a human being, I would EMPATHISE with the victims, and say that it's a tragedy.
What you're saying is like me saying this:
"As a Christian, I would think that you would feel relief that those people were punished by God for not praying to him hard enough... or for living sinful lives... We should be greatful that these people were taken away because it means less of Satan's army to fight during the end times!"
Now I know you wouldn't think that. What I just wrote is a complete charicature of what Christians believe, and it doesn't apply to you.
My advice to you is this. Next time you want to know how an atheist, or evolutionist, or any unbeleiver thinks, or what their response to something is, just ASK THEM. Stop trying to answer your own questions about us before we have a chance to actually answer your questions. It's rude, arrogant, and just makes you look bad.
I feel bad for people who die in tragic circumstances, because I AM A HUMAN BEING. EMpathy is ssomething that all people do. It's what makes us human. Only a thoughtless robot would think in the manner that you posited when you answered your own question. People do not think that way -- except when making bad jokes.
Bill wrote:
"I believe the Bible (God's Word) is absolutely true about what it says concerning your thoughts.. and your heart. Ray, and others like myself, are simply trying to convey that message."
Unfortunately, I don't believe that the Bible says anything about what I think. See, I'm not found anywhere in the Bible. I should know, I've read it. Just because the Bible says that unbelievers are a certain way does not neccesarily mean that believing that verse makes you an expert on what everyone else is thinking, especially when they don't share your faith. I believe that the Bible says that only God knows what I think -- that doesn't include you or Ray or anyone else.
Bill wrote:
You are deceiving yourself about God not existing. Why? Because it eases your conscience and allows you to justify your sinful life that you are living in rebellion against Him."
No it doesn't. I'm not at all comforted that God doesn't exist. The thought that he doesn't exist means that I'm trully not going to have any prayers answered if I ask for help and nobody is around to hear me. It trully means that the end of life is really the end. It trully means that the people who control the guns are the ones who get to rule.
There is nothing comforting about it. But fortunately, I can deal with it. The grim reality of life and death is softened by the joy of living and enjoying the good things that we can get out of life. Eat, Drink, and be merry, as the bards so often told us!
Bill wrote:
"Does using the word 'straw-man' now automatically validate someone's post???"
No, like any post, the validation comes in the content of the post itself.
"Its becoming such a popular word on this blog -on both sides."
Do you understand what a straw man argument is? It's a specific type of argument that is patently false. Anyone who uses the straw man argument is making an invalid claim.
Here is what a straw man is:
Let's say Person A claims to believe in evolution. Person B then says "so why dont' you just kill me and say that you're just practicing survival of the fittest be eliminating competition?"
What makes this a straw man is that Person A said one thing, and Person B presented a distorted and false version of what Person A said, then attacked the distorted position. In other words, Person B ignored what Person A said completely, and did not actually make a case against what Person A said.
There are a lot of other fallacies that are used in arguments all the time, but frquently, when arguing evolution, Creationists tend to use straw man arguments, rather than deal with what is actually written or said.
Irish,
you just made my point. Lions don't feel EMPATHY when one of them kills another to take over a pack, right?
The point of my post was, where did this sense of EMPATHY come from? Did it evolve? My point was that a sense of empathy when another member of your species dies is not consistent with evolutionary theory. I was not suggesting that you don't feel empathy, just pointing out that it isn't consistent with an evolutionary worldview, in fact it is contradictory.
I apologize if I came across as if I was saying that athiests do not feel bad when they hear about tragedies.
"No it doesn't. I'm not at all comforted that God doesn't exist. The thought that he doesn't exist means that I'm trully not going to have any prayers answered if I ask for help and nobody is around to hear me. It trully means that the end of life is really the end. It trully means that the people who control the guns are the ones who get to rule......."
Man you might know science, or whatever it is that you know so well,(I admit you do know that side of it) but you don't know the Bible(spiritual). Have you ever "truly" and humbly asked God anything? If you can fathom space, you can fathom eternity. What will you do if your wrong? Just askin! Doesnt make since to me!
-SM
Oh and Dave, thank you for the advice.
"My advice to you is this. Next time you want to know how an atheist, or evolutionist, or any unbeleiver thinks, or what their response to something is, just ASK THEM. Stop trying to answer your own questions about us before we have a chance to actually answer your questions. It's rude, arrogant, and just makes you look bad."
if we had been talking face to face I would have let you answer first.
Mark said:
"Clostridium ,
Thanks for your response.
An evolutionist is someone who puts his faith in the "neither proven nor provable" (Sir Arthur Keith) theory of evolution."
A theory in science, unlike a theorem in mathematics, is unprovable. We do not prove anything in science because we must leave the door open to what Karl Popper described as "falsifiability". Gravity is unprovable. That doesn't mean it is any less what we would call fact. Similarly, evolution is a fact. The theory is constantly tested in the peer-reviewed literature and has never produced a falsification.
Also, to say someone has put their "faith" in evolution is incorrect. We accept the theory because there is evidence; not a lack thereof, which is the definition of faith. You are the one who has faith in Jesus, because there is no evidence to support his divinity.
@DWI
Yes, only God knows what you think but guess what? He doesn't keep it a secret, sorry. He says in His Word - which you doubt - that your thoughts and heart are wicked. You choose to ignore this because you do not want to face the reality of a holy and righteous God who will judge the ungodly according to His righteousness.
As for finding your comfort in earthly things:
Here is what Jesus said in Luke 17:28-30
"Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."
Take comfort all you want in these things but please know that one day judgement will come - you will then be forced to deal with the fact that your are a sinner and you will have no atonement for it.
Thanks for the explanation of a 'straw-man' argument. Believe me, I KNOW how frustrating they can be on this blog.
So for the sake of tearing down all things made of straw:
Let me give everyone a little head's up about how I attempt to frame all of my posts. You can safely presume the following about ALL of my posts:
1 - I believe the Bible is God's Word and is inerrant and infallible.
2 - Jesus is God and He is God's Son come in the flesh.
3 - Jesus is my propitiation (substitute) for my sin. He willingly shed hiw own blood on the cross for my sake.
4 - All mankind has sinned and stand guilty before God of breakng His Law (a.k.a. sinned).
5 - The just penaty for this sin is eternal punishment in Hell.
6 - Ray is a human being just like I am. He is imperfect as am I. I do not worship him nor do I consider him to be the final authority on all matters - that role belongs to Scripture. I am in complete agreement with him on his conclusions thus far as I believe he has rightly divided the word of Truth. I am absolutely certain that we serve and worship the same risen Lord. He is my brother in Christ.
7 - Above all else, God is holy, righteous, just, loving and merciful.
I think that about covers it. Feel free to post comments to me based on any of the above self-confessed presumptions about me.
Bill
Mark said: "The point of my post was, where did this sense of EMPATHY come from? Did it evolve? My point was that a sense of empathy when another member of your species dies is not consistent with evolutionary theory. I was not suggesting that you don't feel empathy, just pointing out that it isn't consistent with an evolutionary worldview, in fact it is contradictory."
A suggested explanation for empathy has been proposed by Richard Dawkins and others. It is thought to be a byproduct of kin selection. Up until very recently, hominids lived in small communities, generally everyone was related in some fashion, or if not related, you were in constant contact with one another. Kin is very easy to explain, there are very good evolutionary reasons why we should protect our kin-we share genes. A relationship between close, but unrelated group members can become established by which mutual cooperation can be good for both of your genes. You reward help and punish cheats. For instance, vampire bats live in close communities and share blood meals. Members learn which bats can be relied upon to share and they reward those that willingly give up some of their hunt. Those that gain the reputation of being selfish are not reciprocated-they are shunned.
Today we live in cities where we are unlikely to come across each other again, or watch events on TV where we see people we are unlikely to ever come across. We feel empathy for those that suffer or that have little food. This is a byproduct, a wonderful byproduct, of our evolutionary past when our ancestors shared with one another due to the likelihood that the favor would be returned. Today, the favor is very unlikely to be returned but the feeling is still present. Even if we don't still live in small bands, our innate morality has been honed through hundreds of generations of reciprocators; it is in our genes. Evolution pushes social animals to cohere, to cooperate.
clostridium:
"Similarly, evolution is a fact"
This is your opinion. Evolution as most describe is NOT fact but merely conjecture. It is a twisitng and piecing together of facts to make up a story.
"We accept the theory because there is evidence"
There is no evidence. None. The only "evidence" is that this planet has many species of animals, both living and extinct, who have similar biological make up (because they were created by the same "person"). Similar proteins, similar DNA, similar bodily functions, similar physiology, etc. What we don't have is evidence that one living single celled organism "evolved" into another multi-cell organism, who then "evolved" into some animal, which then "evolved" into another type of animal, and so forth and so on until we became humans. That is just a made up story that the facts don't add up to.
"You are the one who has faith in Jesus, because there is no evidence to support his divinity"
Rising from the dead after 3 days is not enough evidence for you?
""Similarly, evolution is a fact"
This is your opinion. Evolution as most describe is NOT fact but merely conjecture. It is a twisitng and piecing together of facts to make up a story."
Positively untrue. I am a biologist and read the technical literature. I have also tested aspects of the theory myself in my own research. It is sound.
""We accept the theory because there is evidence"
There is no evidence. None. The only "evidence" is that this planet has many species of animals, both living and extinct, who have similar biological make up (because they were created by the same "person"). Similar proteins, similar DNA, similar bodily functions, similar physiology, etc. What we don't have is evidence that one living single celled organism "evolved" into another multi-cell organism, who then "evolved" into some animal, which then "evolved" into another type of animal, and so forth and so on until we became humans. That is just a made up story that the facts don't add up to."
Ever heard of endosymbiosis and its evidences???
""You are the one who has faith in Jesus, because there is no evidence to support his divinity"
Rising from the dead after 3 days is not enough evidence for you?"
And what is the evidence for this conjecture??? Odd you will believe this....yet reject the evidence from organismal genomes which point to evolution-even our own genome.
Doc:
"Rising from the dead after 3 days is not enough evidence for you?"
If I actually saw that event, I would be rather impressed. A book saying it happenned is less impressive. You see, I don't believe the bible is inerrent.
Greetings believers and non-believers!
(I borrowed that one from a prolific atheist video poster on Youtube. I just sorta dig it.)
Let me make a clarification here. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist." There are biologist, taxonomists, genecticists, etc. There are also just educated individuals. But there aren't any "evolutionists" in the sense that you mean it, that is, someone who believes in evolutionary theory in the sense that a creationist or ID propontant believes his doctrine. (Which, by the way, by definition cannot be scientific, as it has no real theory, cannot make predictions and is completely untestable.) To call someone an "evolutionist" is even more nonsensical than to call someone who studies physics a "gravitationist." Likewise, there's no such thing as a "Darwinist" any more than there's such a thing as a "Newtonist."
For about the millionth time: evolution is a fact of nature, in the same way that gravity is. What evolutionary theory does is propose an explanatory mechanism for why evolution works the way that it does, which is Natural Selection, in the same way that the Theory of Gravity provides an explanatory mechanism.
As for those who claim that there is no evidence to support evolutionary change, I direct you to the last 150 years of research in biological sciences, all of which, if you bothered to read and understand it, supports modern evolutionary theory. (Which, by the way, as certainly changed and developed since Darwin's day.) If you can direct me to one peer-reviewed scientific study that supports ID or creationism (which, by the way, by definition it can't do, ID not being a scientific theory in the first place), then I'd be happy to read it.
Peace all.
PS By the way, what I would dearly love is for someone to quote-mine the above to prove that I don't think that there's any such thing as evolution, since I said that there's no such thing as an "evolutionist." That would be priceless.
Doc,
The accounts of the resurrection are in wild disagreement and contradict each other.
The gospels are touted as eyewitness acoounts but they are not and I can prove it.
First of all, the gospels were not given their present names untill 309 AD. Nobody knows for sure who wrote the first three.
Secondly, "Luke" states in his forst chapter that these accounts came down to us through the generations. He admits he was not an eyewitness.
And, since the three synoptic gospels most assuredly were transcripted from an earlier "Q" gospel, it is obvious that they are not eyewitness accounts.
The lineage of the supposed Jesus are al whacked out too.
There is no empirical evidence for the existence of a God, and while I cannot prove there is no God, it comes down to the ethic of unknowns. Sometimes there are things that we just don't know. Now if you elect to believe in a supernatural power, that is your right. "It neither picks my pocket or breaks my arm." ---Tom Jefferson.
Brian,
In response to your first comment, that is exactly why Ben Stine is making the movie _Expelled_. It's a documentary showing how if one scientist questions evolution, he/she is automatically discredited, and is pretty much persecuted even for questioning it. He makes that point in one of the trailers for the movie... that if evolution is so true, why do they act so defensively and persecute and pretty much banish those scientists who question evolution?
I'm not promoting the movie, I just heard about it yesterday and that was one of the points he made.
Haha, he even went as far to say that if people watch that movie, they will be hated by many people.
Doc,
The accounts of the resurrection are in wild disagreement and contradict each other.
The gospels are touted as eyewitness acoounts but they are not and I can prove it.
First of all, the gospels were not given their present names untill 309 AD. Nobody knows for sure who wrote the first three.
Secondly, "Luke" states in his forst chapter that these accounts came down to us through the generations. He admits he was not an eyewitness.
And, since the three synoptic gospels most assuredly were transcripted from an earlier "Q" gospel, it is obvious that they are not eyewitness accounts.
The lineage of the supposed Jesus are al whacked out too.
There is no empirical evidence for the existence of a God, and while I cannot prove there is no God, it comes down to the ethic of unknowns. Sometimes there are things that we just don't know. Now if you elect to believe in a supernatural power, that is your right. "It neither picks my pocket or breaks my arm." ---Tom Jefferson.
If Ray thinks that his quote mining is ethical and valid, and that the surrounding text is "soil", then he should have no problem with this:
"There is no God."
Deuteronomy 32:39
2 Samuel 7:22
1 Kings 8:23
2 Kings 1:3
2 Kings 1:6
2 Kings 1:16
2 Kings 5:15
1 Chronicles 17:20
2 Chronicles 6:14
And so on. Don't bother looking those up, there is no value in the surrounding words.
I'd like to make a statement, off topic, but not so off topic.
Something I found to be important about the theory of the "Big Bang."
This may be old news to many but I thought it appropriate to post here. Certainly important in the scientific community at large.
Since I cannot give a link, you can google this.. "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community"
This is put out by secular scientists (not Christians), Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004.
If 405 secular astronomers, scientists, engineers, and independent researchers who declare the big bang to be dead, signed this statement, then why, oh why! is the evolutionist community and atheists still going on about the Big Bang being true?
The "Big Bang" theory is dead.
Secular scientists blast the big bang.
Here are some of the snippets. This is from the secular scientists folks, so atheists don't get into a fit, thinking this is from Christians.
1.) ‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’
2.) ‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’
3)‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory
4) ‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’
I almost hope one day that secular scientists see this about evolution.
"The big bang model has never worked…. Observations have never supported the big bang model. We just thought that it did." -Physics Forums
In 2 Thessolonians Chapter 1, it speaks of a stong delusion:
The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Could evolution be that delusion?
Another note about science.
‘Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth” is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.’
Professor Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia, Lateline, 9 October 1998, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Captain Howdy wrote: "Christians: If you just lap up what Rays says about evolution, then you're officially stupid."
Just for the record, I don't have to hear from Ray the facts about evolution to know that what he is saying is true. I didn't hear about Ray Comfort until less than three years ago, and I have never believed that intellectually bankrupt theory in my entire 25 years of existence.
As for being stupid, that I may indeed be--but certainly not because I believe the Bible (the TRUTH) instead of some scientists who can't seem to discover something the Bible hasn't already talked about.
To whom it may concern:
Evolution is a hilarious theory. It makes me sick when I have to read in textbooks something like this: "Indeed, it has been suggested that humans have an innate drive to alter their awareness through the use of chemical compounds, and one of the reasons that early hominids may have climed out of the trees of Africa was to gain better access to mushrooms with a hallucinogenic potential that grew in the dung of savanna-dwelling grazing animals (Walton, 2002)." Quote taken from Chapter 9, Alcohol of Concepts of Chemical Dependency Custom Version for the University of Louisville Sixth Edition by Howard E. Doweiko. It's statements like these that just make me sick. Why? Because it's a theory that's being treated as a fact in all aspects of life. It is purely speculative!
Sincerely,
lousivillecardsfan(at)gmail.com
P.S. If you'd like to contest my quote (saying I took it out of context) I'll be happy to type out the entire paragraph for you and send it to you if you would be so kind as to email me via my signature.
Mark said...
"Irish, you just made my point. Lions don't feel EMPATHY when one of them kills another to take over a pack, right?"
I'm not sure. I know that although cats are fierce and often kill one another, they do, at other times, seem to have emotions -- much simpler than our own, though.
Mark wrote:
"The point of my post was, where did this sense of EMPATHY come from? Did it evolve?
Most certainly. Part of our "survival behaviors" involves being part of a group. We call it a tribe or family, but we share a lot of group survival patterns with animals that congregate in herds or packs. Our behavior is sort of loke a pack of wolves, in that we tend to hunt in groups. A single wolf can hunt on it's own, but as a pack, the survival of each individual takes less work, and thus, all benefit from the group. Apes have the same strategy -- live in a group, the biggest fiercest ones lead, but when threatened, the whole group fights as a team.
There is a definite survival advantage to this group style of living, but it requires a certain set of behaviors. The empathy we feel as humans towards other humans is part of that set of behaviors. One can argue that because we all have the same DNA, that these behaviors are hard coded into everyone's brain, and that is why so many different cultures have the same basic rules and beliefs.
Mark wrote:
"My point was that a sense of empathy when another member of your species dies is not consistent with evolutionary theory. I was not suggesting that you don't feel empathy, just pointing out that it isn't consistent with an evolutionary worldview, in fact it is contradictory."
Well, it is, actually. Nobody told you to have empathy for someone else who gets killed. We do it quite naturally. Even apes and some monkeys show empathy for dead members of their troops. They even get depressed when a close companion dies. The evolutionary reason for this is that the emotions that create empathy help us survive in a group by giving us an instinct to help others, or in the case of hearing of bad news from a distant disaster, it gets us thinking "what if it were me?", and those thoughts trigger us to think of how we could be better prepared to deal with disasters -- people who hear of thousands dying in a flood may start building boats or re-enforcing levys. People who hear of an invading army may build arms and train people to fight if invaded. This all our intellect (the ability to comprehend facts, put them together and think ahead) acting on our instincts (feeling empathy for others).
Mark wrote:
"I apologize if I came across as if I was saying that athiests do not feel bad when they hear about tragedies."
No problem! Aplogy accepted.
Consider that you still are not required to lose faith to understand or accept evolution. Think of our emotions like empathy as "something that god put in our heads to help us survive adversities..."
Thanks, Mr. Comfort.
clostridium:
"Positively untrue. I am a biologist and read the technical literature. I have also tested aspects of the theory myself in my own research. It is sound."
I have also read the technical literature. Huge leaps and assumptions are made by people who interpret the data. Are you telling me that in your own research you have made cats out of the genetic DNA for dogs or something similar to this? Because that is the whole theory. "Aspects of the theory" don't prove the theory.
"Ever heard of endosymbiosis and its evidences'
Yes. And this proves what in your opinion? Are you saying this proves evolution? That is one of those huge leaps and assumptions that I am refering to.
"'Rising from the dead after 3 days is not enough evidence for you?'
And what is the evidence for this conjecture??? Odd you will believe this....yet reject the evidence from organismal genomes which point to evolution-even our own genome"
The evidence is letters from eyewitnesses. There were people there who actually saw/witnessed the event and wrote about it. There is historical evidence that this occurred from different sources. Organismal genomes don't point to evolution only to a common designer.
Pvblivs:
"'Rising from the dead after 3 days is not enough evidence for you?'
If I actually saw that event, I would be rather impressed. A book saying it happenned is less impressive. You see, I don't believe the bible is inerrent."
Therein lies the issue. You believe people that say we evolved from singled cell organisms even though no one actually witnessed this occuring because no one was there when this supposedly happened, but you won't believe the written testimonies of other people who actually witnessed an event like the resurrection of Jesus. You see, just about everything you have learned in your life someone else told you about. Why do you believe history books that say Darwin was a scientist that existed and developed a theory? Did you actually witness him doing his observations and writing things down? You believe it because you read it from a book. Why do you dismiss the historical writings of the bible but believe all other historical writings? Maybe because you don't like what it says.
dale:
"The accounts of the resurrection are in wild disagreement and contradict each other"
Not true. They are not verbatim accounts but they do not contradict each other and are not "wild". They are accounts given by different eyewitnesses from their own point of view. I would be more skeptical of a conspiracy if all eyewitness account were verbatim or exactly the same. That would be fishy. However, that is not what we have. We have several people who wrote what they saw from their point of view. I have heard of all the suppossed "contradictions" of the gospels and, frankly, there are logical answers for these suppossed "contradictions" and if read carefully you will find that no true contradictions exist.
"The gospels are touted as eyewitness acoounts but they are not and I can prove it.
First of all, the gospels were not given their present names untill 309 AD. Nobody knows for sure who wrote the first three"
Not true. Just because they were named later (and chapters and verses were added later also) does not mean we do not know who wrote them. These gospels were circulating prior to their formal introduction into an organized bible and the early christians knew who wrote them and passed this information down through the generations.
"Secondly, "Luke" states in his forst chapter that these accounts came down to us through the generations. He admits he was not an eyewitness"
Yes. He also states that he carefully investigated the accounts of the eyewitnesses and found them to be accurate and also wrote down the information gathered from the eyewitnesses. Just because he was not an eyewitness does not disprove the other eyewitness accounts.
" And, since the three synoptic gospels most assuredly were transcripted from an earlier "Q" gospel, it is obvious that they are not eyewitness accounts"
This is a false statement. Of course you have proof of this, right? There is no "Q" gospel. It is a hypothetical theory that has no factual basis.
"The lineage of the supposed Jesus are al whacked out too"
Is this a scientific term? Care to state what the problem with the lineage is? Do you refer to the different lineage accounts from the gospels? The answer has been known for centuries. Since Jesus had an Earthly mother and Earthly (not biological) father one lineage traces his paternal side and the other traces his maternal side (Mary and Joseph).
"There is no empirical evidence for the existence of a God, and while I cannot prove there is no God, it comes down to the ethic of unknowns. Sometimes there are things that we just don't know. Now if you elect to believe in a supernatural power, that is your right. "It neither picks my pocket or breaks my arm." ---Tom Jefferson."
Fair enough. But don't say that there is no evidence that God exists beacause there is. No one is without excuse. The universe cries out the existence of God. Many people just choose to ignore this fact. You may not believe it and that is your perogative but it is not for lack of evidence. However, the consequences of not acknowledging this fact may be dire and is worth being absolutely sure.
hmm..I had said to myself that I wouldn't write in the controversial "evolution" posts because its just too sad, too frustrating, etc...
But here's something I just find completely, umm, silly.
First of all, Brian, its true. If human beings lie ALL the time, why in the world would I believe in a scientist who for all I know could be making up half the stuff AND believe his lies too just to prove a point?
Secondly, I find it quite odd that different advocates of evolution who sound (read?) very smart and intellectual, say at one time that Natural Selection is random, and at another time that Natural Selection is a non-random process. Plus I have found that they have done is at very convenient times, or moments in a discussion. I will not judge their heart I just hope this is a misunderstanding and not a self-deceiving action to justify their beliefs.
So Charles if I understand you correctly, Natural Selection has seen fit that Dominicans should live around 50-60 years, should carry in their genes sickle-cell disease, that almost an entire town should carry hermaphrodite genes, and that the amount of leukemic genes in children should increase too?? I say this because A. The ones bearing more offspring are those with the characteristics I just told you.
So apparently, Natural Selection, decides which characteristics are more proper for the enviroment the species is living in, but the mutation required for those characteristics to take place is totally random? Am I correct so far? So its actually coincidential that the mutation should lead to the characteristic best fit for said enviroment?
So the fact that we are actually even alive, because our genes haven't mutated to our disadvantage so far, is actually just pure luck??
Am I not being sarcastic, or anything, I'm trying to understand your line of thinking, and your explanation of natural selection/evolution.
As for adaptation I consider it to be the ability the body has to adapt to an atmosphere, eviroment and or situation. Kind of like the woman when she becomes pregnant, her body suffers different modifications all over so that she can carry the pregnancy to term, and so that the baby will not be harmed. But after the baby is born, the body changes back in about give or take 40 days. Some say 60, but its generally 40 days. Another example would be with divers, the spend a lot of time in deep waters, so much so that their lung capacity is modified, their skin is modified, their hair, etc
No, Rita, you don't understand me correctly, but that's okay.
First off, Natural Selection doesn't "decide" anything, not in the way that you mean it. That is, there's no conscious being named Natural Selection that has some traits in mind and encourages them to develop in a certain population of animals.
Here's how it works instead, as best I can explain it. Genetic mutations are random. They happen all the time - witness all the junk DNA that we human beings carry around in our own genome. Some of the variations the result from some of these genetic changes are beneficial, some are harmful, and some are neutral. The beneficial changes, as one might well expect, are beneficial because they give an organism some type of advantage in its struggle to survive long enough to leave offspring. The prevalence of these genetic changes and resultant modifications will thus increase in subsequent generations. Eventually, these changes accumulate to the extent that the section of the population that have developed these new traits, if they have separated themselves from their orignal population, experience enough genetic changes that they can no longer breed with the members of their original species. This doesn't mean that new species are necessarily going to replace their ancestors, if those ancestors can still compete well enough in their own ecological niche that they continue to survive. For example, the line of arthropods (which includes insects, spiders, and crustaceans), haven't shared a common ancestor with the vertebrates for a very, very long time. They continue to be very successful at what they do, and so the vertbrates (fish, mammels, etc.) haven't replaced them. Vertebrates have just found other ways to make a living.
All life on this planet is related, forming not so much a hierachical ladder of species and a branching bush. So there's no progress in the sense, as it's often mistakenly portrayed, of fish turning into reptiles turning into amphibians turning into mammals turning into primates turning into human beings. It's much more like a vast family tree. Some branches flourish and produces lots of little twigs, some not so much. But these changes are gradual, when measured against human lifespans, and they happen bit by bit. So, to answer one common creationist objection, evolutionary theory doesn't allow for a moth to lay an egg that suddenly turns into a bird. That's plainly absurd, and no one with any kind of scientific knowledge has ever asserted anything like that. However, if you trace the ancestry of birds and moths back far enough through all of the many, many diverging branches of relationships, you'll eventually find that they share a common ancestor that was neither a bird nor a moth. You'd have to go way, way back in this particular case, probably to the Precambrian Age, but eventually you could do it.
What you have to keep in mind is the immense amount of time it's taken for all of these cumulative changes to add up into all the different species that have existed on this earth at one time or another. Currently, the best evidence suggests that the rudiments of life, single-celled organisms, developed relatively quickly once the earth formed, but that it then took about 3 billion years for them to get into the business of forming multicellular life forms. Look at the Cosmic Calendar that Carl Sagan developed to explain the time scales involved. If you compress the history of the universe, all 13 billion years, down to a single year, then the Milky Way forms in March, our Sun and the planets show up in August, single-celled organisms appear in September, multicellular life in November, the first vertebrates on December 17, the first mammals on December 25th, the dinosaurs go extinct on the 29th, the first human ancestors start walking upright at 9:24pm on December 31st, anatomically modern humans show up at 11:54, and the entirety of human history from the beginning of written records takes up only the last 15 seconds of the last minute before midnight.
I assume that this notion dismays Christians for a number of reasons. One, because it doesn't require a deity directing things to make it work. Two, it certainly puts the lie to the notion that human beings are the most important thing in the universe. And three, it shows that we're only one small twig on the great flowering bush of related life forms on this planet, and not necessarily a very significant one at that.
But let me go back to the subject of beneficial and non-beneficial genetic mutations. The obvious case of the survival of a purely benefical mutation is pretty easy to understand. But genes can code for more than one characteristic, so if a neutral change piggybacks along with a beneficial one, so to speak, then it will also tend to increase in a population without providing a benefit in itself. Even negative changes can be tied to a beneficial one, so long as the harm doesn't outweigh the benefit. Also, keep in mind that these changes aren't being directed. If some change comes along that ope