List of Practical Applications Developed from the Knowledge of Evolution:

Advertisements

30 Responses to List of Practical Applications Developed from the Knowledge of Evolution:

  1. Ken says:

    And here is my list of practical applications (and new knowledge) developed fropm “intelligent design” theory:

  2. billphillips says:

    Ken,

    Thanks for your comment.

    There are examples of predictions, techonologies and techniques coming from the Bible.

    Dr. Russ Humphreys accurately predicted the strength of the magnetic field of Uranus using Biblical assumptions, and his predictions were verified by Voyager 2.

    Science itself came about when Christians wanted to study God’s Creation in an effort to know Him better.

    Matthew Maury discovered ocean currents in 1806 after reading Psalm 8:8 where it talks about the paths of the seas.

    The Jews were commanded to wash their hands in running water after touching a dead body. In the 1700’s doctors would go straight from examining a dead body to delivering babies. The death rate was horrific until doctors started washing their hands under running water.

    I could go on, but you get the point.

    Bill

  3. Ken says:

    I see – you equate “intelligent design” with the Bible! I guess why that is why there are no scientific papers discussing and testing predictions.

  4. billphillips says:

    Ken,

    I did a quick search for papers on intelligent design, and found this one by Dr. William Dembski. It’s the first link to come up in Google. Is this particular one any good? I don’t know, but after a 15 second internet search, what you say can be proven wrong.

    http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

    If I make a hypothesis that the earth is 6000 years old, we can scientifically test that idea. Granted, I have inside information as to why I said 6000 years, but is my hypothesis any less valid because I got it from the Bible? It turns out that there are many things that point to the earth being that old: the salinity of the seas, the magnetic field, the size of deserts, etc.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  5. Ken says:

    The age of the earth has been tested and your proposition proved wrong – many, many times over. You can only make that claim by ignoring a huge amount of information. Dembski’s article is not published in a scientific pear-reviewed journal journal (arn is an ID website).
    None of the ID people have ever tested their theories – but they has been tested for them. Behe’s “irreducible complexity” examples have all been proved wrong.

  6. billphillips says:

    Ken,

    Wow! That’s totally wrong. You probably think evolution is no longer a theory but has been proven. I’ve already given you a couple examples of predictions based on a young earth that have been proven. There’s plenty of others, but since you ignored them, and you seem to have all of the answers, I’ve been interested in finding the answer to these questions from an atheistic viewpoint for a while:

    Where did all the matter in the universe come from?

    How did even the simplest life form come about?

    When you answer those I’ve got a few dozen other basic questions that evolution should be able to answer.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  7. Dan says:

    Let me ask you Ken,
    If someone were to tell you that you had the opportunity to “Go Where No Man has gone Before” you probably would be very excited right? Now upon getting there you stumble on a 4×4 concrete block. Would you say that it came to be there by chance? Or would you deny the fact someone had been there before you, and had poured this concrete block? Would anyone believe you if you said that you came across this concrete block, and it had to have been there by chance, because you were the first to walk this land? People would think you were crazy! It makes no sense to think that mere men could one day look at this vast earth, and say “You know what there is no way all of this was created it has to have come by chance!!” What a silly thing to think or say.

  8. Pilgrim says:

    Dear Bill,

    Check out this video:
    http://reformationnation.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/creation-vs-evolution-profoundly-simple-proufoundly-logical/

    It is so simple yet so profoundly thought provoking on the issue of the absurdity of the THEORY of evolution. Of course folks like Ken would disagree, but that’s expected.

    Sincerely,
    – The Pilgrim of http://www.ReformationNation.net

  9. Jay says:

    I have no objection if Ken thinks he evolved from a monkey.

  10. Ken says:

    “I have no objection if Ken thinks he evolved from a monkey.” This statement demonstrates you ignorance of evolutionary theory. (And is rather childish to boot).

  11. so, Ken, tell me. What’s the new species we evolved from?

  12. Ken says:

    Depends how far you want to go back. It’s a naive mistake to say any modern species evolved from another modern species. We do know that you and I and monkeys have a common ancestor species (which understandably no longer exists). We are actually more closely related to chimps – that is you and I and Chimps have a common ancestor who is more recent than the ancestor we have in common with monkeys.

    Of course, if we go back further we find that we have an ancestor in common with all other mammals. Or even further with all other vertebrates. And so on.

    And we know this from this information in our genomes, and those of our cousin species. As well as from fossils.

    Isn’t science wonderful?

  13. billphillips says:

    Ken,

    There is a 4% difference between chimp and human genomes. That may not sound like much, but 4% is 35 million different DNA bases. 35 million mutations is astounding. How many generations does it take to have 1 beneficial mutation? Have we ever even observed a beneficial mutation? Why does any similarity in the genome indicate evolution rather than a common designer?

    I realize there is no theory on where all the matter came from, and you can’t answer the question I asked you a few days ago. Do you personally have a guess on that? If you have a guess or faith in science to come up with the answer, how is that different from religion?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  14. Ken says:

    Actually, I think the difference is currently thought to be a bit more than 5%. However, the problem is not explaining how this could happen in the given time, but why is it so slow. Observed evolutionary changes take place at a faster rate. It seems to be explained by the non-directional aspect of evolution – there are many diversions along the way to fill in th time.

    Current theories of origins of matter/energy seem to postulate that there was no net change during the big bang – the negative and positive forms still balance out.

    However, I think a key thing is the ability to answer such questions honestly and say “I don’t know.” One of the beauties of science is this humility – to admit lack of knowledge in an area, and inability to answer as specific question, and then to say – let’s find out. And that’s what science does very well.

  15. billphillips says:

    Ken,

    No one has ever observed a beneficial mutation.

    You have faith in evolution and science to fill in the huge gaping gaps in knowledge, someday. You have taken your leap of faith. Of course, you realize you’re trusting in science for your eternity or lack thereof.

    I have to warn you that that the Bible says we all deserve to go to hell, because we’ve broken God’s law–the Ten Commandments. If you’ve ever told a lie, stolen even one penny, or looked at a woman with lust, you have God’s word that you will go to hell. Please tell me that you’re concerned that if God gave you justice, you’d have to be punished.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  16. Ken says:

    Bill, we observe evolutionary changes all the time – there are so many examples but I think you should consider how evolution underpins so much of medical knowledge. Every time you take advantage of that with new drugs, vaccinations, etc., you are, in practice, acknowledging evolution.

    As for the rest of you comment – it just doesn’t make any sense to me.

  17. billphillips says:

    Ken,

    I think people get confused on the definition of evolution. There are many types of evolution.

    1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
    2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
    3. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
    4. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
    5. Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
    6. Microevolution- Change within a species.

    No one is arguing #6. No one has evidence for #1-5, and they’re not true.

    What part of my previous comment doesn’t make sense? It just says there is a Creator whether you believe it or not. He has laws, and you’ve broken them (I have, too). There are consequences for breaking the laws. The consequences are eternity in hell.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  18. Ken says:

    Just because you wish something were not true doesn’t make it so. Scientifically we have to look at the evidence and then check out any resulting hypothesis by accumulating more evidence. We are doing this all the time.

    As a result there is plenty of evidence for speciation in biological evolution (from fossils and currently living organisms). We have a good understanding of nuclear transformations and much of the detail of the origins of the universe have been worked out. Currently there has no been a practical demonstration of formation of living (synthetic) organisms from non-living matter. I wouldn’t hold my breath but have a look at the recent Venter Institute announcement (Venter Institute Scientists Create First Synthetic Bacterial Genome). This suggests we are getting closer.

    So I am breaking someone’s law!!
    Which specific one?
    Are you suggesting scientific investigation is against the laws of this “creator”?
    Are all scientist going to hell?

  19. billphillips says:

    Ken,

    There are dozens of basic questions evolutionists can’t answer. I’ll give you some examples. Which came first the desire to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? Evolution is based on beneficial mutations happening in offspring. How did the first male organism pop into existence fully developed with both the ability and desire to reproduce in the same time and place as a fully developed female popped into existence?

    This kind of miracle has to happen with every biological system over and over and over; everything from microbiology to circulatory systems have to overcome astounding odds in order to happen into existence. At some point the odds so fantastic that you either have to have your kind of faith in the miracle of evolution or a realistic person would just have to give up on the idea as preposterous. You probably believe in more miracles than I do.

    Not only do you have to overcome all of the unbelievable odds, but then you have to believe that the universe created itself. Did you know that conservation of angular momentum would indicate that all of the planets and stars are rotating in the same direction? However, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all have moons revolving in different directions. Venus, Uranus and Pluto are rotating backwards. It must take an incredible amount of energy to get a planet spinning. What could make it start spinning backwards?

    Science isn’t against God’s laws. Almost all branches of science were founded by Christians seeking to learn more about the Creator.

    You’re breaking the Ten Commandments. The first commandment is that you will put nothing in your life ahead of the Lord. The ninth commandment is that you will not lie. Have you ever told a lie? Jesus said if you’ve ever looked at a woman with lust, you’ve committed adultery in your heart. Have you ever had a sexual thought about a woman who wasn’t your wife? You’re guilty, and your conscience should be screaming at you. Just like any lawbreaker, you must be punished. What are you going to do to avoid your punishment?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  20. Ken says:

    If you say “Science isn’t against God’s laws” I guess you mean that you accept science. Then why is it that you seem to want to deny scientific investigation? If you have a question you may or may not be able to find the answer in existing knowledge that humanity has. If we don’t know the answer then we need to investigate and find the explanations using the scientific method. This is the way we have done it in the past and we know it works – there is a proved track record.

    Many of the questions you pose are just silly or misrepresentations (don’t trust those tracts you get the questions from! – those a classical lies creationists use in an attempt to discredit current scientific knowledge). They indicate a desire to find something that humanity doesn’t have an explanation for and then make the claim that it is impossible to discover the explanation. A classical “god of the gaps” approach which only leads to humiliation (and a removal of arguments for a god) as our knowledge expands.

    There is a lot humanity doesn’t understand and the appropriate response to such ignorance is research, discovery and science.

    So what has science ever revealed about your creator? Really. In the sense oif scientific verifiable evidence and knowledge?

    Rejection of science and reason, withdrawal into faith, is just a recipe for continued ignorance.

  21. billphillips says:

    Ken,

    Here are some more questions. No matter how insurmountable the odds, keep your faith in that evolutionary miracle!

    Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?

    Which evolved first, the digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

    Which evolved first, DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

    Science doesn’t reveal anything about God that He hasn’t already told us in the Bible, but it has confirmed many times that He told us the truth in the Bible, which I’ve already pointed out to you.

    You’re revealing your ignorance of the history of science with your comments. Newton, Kepler many others were Christians. Again, almost all of the branches of science were founded by Chrsitians. You pretending that Christians are anti-science shows either ignorance or willful ignorance; I think you’re being willfully ignorant in a desperate attempt to defend your religion–the religion that says you will not be accountable for the way you life your life. You’re living in rebellion of the Creator, and the thought of having to give an account to Him is so distasteful that you’re willing to believe a ridiculous story like evolution.

    “But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.” -Jesus

    Thanks,
    Bill

  22. Ken says:

    This is silly. No one suggest Christians are anti-science (although obviously some like you are).
    Many Christian scientists like Ken Miller are doing a marvelous job defending science against anti-science in the form of creationist attacks. And many Christian Clergy are doing the same thing (see Religious opposition to “intelligent design”).

    The fact remains that despite your title to this post you use the products of evolutionary science every day of your life.

    You pull questions our of your creationist tracts but ignore the fact that the only way to answer these questions is through science.

  23. billphillips says:

    Ken,

    These questions have no answer. I don’t mean science hasn’t found the answer. I mean there is no answer and there never will be an answer, because evolution is not true. These are basic questions. Darwin didn’t know about DNA, but he knew of these questions. They are simple questions. Think this through. After 150 years and thousands of brilliant lives spent laboring over evolution, you still have faith that science will answer these questions.

    Ken, listen to me, these are simple, obvious questions that Darwin should have asked himself. When he couldn’t answer them, he should have scrapped the theory. It’s a stupid theory that doesn’t answer simple questions. People are so desperate to believe such a dumb theory so they don’t have to think about facing their Creator. Think these questions through, and you’ll see that they either should be answered by now, or the theory is bogus.

    Are you really going to go on believing in miracles? Don’t pretend to be scientific. This is your religion.

  24. Ken says:

    Science is continually answering all sorts of questions about evolution. That is why you are daily using the products of this science – based on modern evolutionary theory. It works extremely well and you take advantage of it.

    The fact is of course that very many scientists working in evolutionary biology are also Christians. They aren’t stupid (or the theory dumb) as you suggest. How do you explain that?

    Why is it that, in my country, about 55% of Christians happily accept evolutionary theory. How do you explain that?

    Why is it that these very intelligent Christians accept evolutionary theory, work with it and help develop it, and are providing us with so many discoveries (which make your life better)?

    I don’t think they are bogus – perhaps your ideas are though.

  25. billphillips says:

    Ken,

    Science has believed so many stupid things down throught the centuries. George Washington, who I’m sure received the best medical treatment available, had his blood drained. It didn’t work out very well.

    Science improves and discovers the truth. Why do you think it’s so impossible that evolution might be on the list of stupid things scientists believed?

    I have no idea why some Christians would believe in evolution. Evolution totally contradicts the Bible, and I don’t see how anyone can pretend to believe in both. It isn’t only contradictory with the first few chapters in Genesis. It is contradictory to what Jesus said, and it would be impossible to fit the Gospel into a world with evolution. Adam had to be a real man who committed the first sin. Otherwise the Gospel doesn’t work and I’m going to hell. If evolution is true, the Bible should go in the trash; it is completely worthless.

    If it is true, you’re in big trouble. I’ve asked you basic questions that evolution should be able to answer without miracles. All I can do is plead with you to think about it. Examine both sides of the issue, and make an informed decision about your eternity. Eternity is a long time. Take a look at answersingenesis.org and be sure to hold evolution to the same standard that you hold answersingenesis.org to. I think if you give up your presuppositions you’ll find the evidence for the Bible compelling. Or is the thought of having to submit to the Creator so distasteful that you’re unwilling to examine the evidence with an open mind?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  26. Ken says:

    “I have no idea why some Christians would believe in evolution. “ Well, that’s a start. Admitting ignorance on a question enables us to look into it and discover the reasons.

    The fact is that these are honest people with the same religion as you. Many of them have obviously come to their conclusions based on the scientific evidence. Many of them are experts in the area (which you aren’t) and therefore should be listened to.

    And then there is the clergy letter project (Religious opposition to “intelligent design”) Begun in 2004 it currently has 11,130 signatories supporting this statement:
    “We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.”

  27. billphillips says:

    Ken,

    We’re not taking a vote on whether evolution is true. We’re seeking the truth, right? If you really cared what those 11,130 people thought, you’d repent and put your faith in Jesus right now. Routinely throughout human history, the majority of people are often wrong. Furthermore, 11,130 isn’t anywhere near a majority of Christians or clergy.

    Do you have an open mind on this topic? Are you willing to examine evidence that might be contrary to your assumptions? Has the possibility that the earth is 6000 years old even crossed your mind?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  28. Ken says:

    Yes, I’ve considered the possibility but rejected it on the basis of evidence which supports more like 4.5 billion years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s