Evolution?

[airhead]

Not a big fan of either.

Genisis does not account for a lot of time and things that happened before man came along.

Evolution has created some pretty big hurdles for itself as the gene mapping becomes better. Some of the \"steps\" are fairly large and don\'t really make sense genetically.

I can follow the tiny horse up to modern horse, but I have a hard time going from protoplanton to armored trilobite to fish to mammal. Even from tricerotops to cattle is a fairly large leap to accept.

I\'m slowly becoming a fan of intelligent design (if I can ever learn to spell it.)

 

[demonherald]

I wass watching a programme on this last night and the negative effects tiptoeing around religous beliefs is having in schools particularly regards teaching science and evolution...

The best example was a guy who taught science but had absolutely no doubtsthat the earth was only around 10000 years old...

I find that marrying religion and science is never gonna work , people need religion and beliefs and in there very nature most religions exist on faith , scientific beliefs go on evidence and provable fact , however science still cannot provide all the answers but it will always try and do it with proof... can we trust the proof?? well I do.. there are so many examples of evolution happening on a small basis that I find it difficult when I hear people simply don\'t believe in it...(hedegehogs that live near major roads gradually developing longer legs is a good one)

I love natural history I understand evolution and how it works and it is in my realms of comfort.. I don\'t believe in God as a creator but I do take comfort in the thoughts of an afterlife . I don\'t think anybody should be blasted for having a particular viewpoint but I have no time for Those that are blinkered to everything but one single path without being open to the thoughts and ideas behind anothers.

 

[mattrock]

Originally posted by junior elf
Well actually evolution is proven not to a degree but completely. There is so much evidence which can not be denied. If you like science you would know that DNA has a four letter code. Each living thing has its own different code and if you take the DNA of an ape from 250 000 years ago, one from 200 000 years ago, one from 150 000 years ago ... and one from nowadays you can clearly see the evolution of that mammal. Another example is that if you look at reptiles you can see that its jaw has 7 bones whilst on a mammal it only has one. This is because the six others have moved into the lower part of the ear. Now lets see what evidence believers of Adam and Eve have (Sorry if this seems a bit rude but I don\'t know how else to put it, I\'m more of a scientist than a writer).

This is what I\'m talking about. If it was proven, it\'d be the law of evolution, not the theory. Evolutionists tend to take what evidence and proof they have, and extend it far beyond it\'s ability to support itself. There is at least as much blind acceptance in the evolutionary community as there is in Intelligent Design community.

Prove how your ape became an ape in the first place. Show me the progression from one-celled organism to ape. Find me fossil evidence to support all the transitionary species in between. With so many differing species on this planet, the transitionary evidence should be absolutely overwhelming and in fact, they\'ve found what, like 5, maybe 10 possible transitional species?

Even if you could prove all that, prove the \'primordial soup\'. Not only is there no proof of the soup, there\'s not even any evidence. There has never been an experiment done where science could reproduce the origin of life from non-life.

Changes in species happen over time and that is called evolution. I\'m fine with that. But evolution as a theory of origin holds no more water than ID or anything else because THERE SIMPLY IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT A THEORY OF ORIGINS.

As to believers of Adam and Eve, what we have is a number of mathematical probabilites regarding differing aspects of what we believe that seem to point to the truth of what the Bible teaches. That\'s not to say we have proof. We have to take the idea of Intelligen Design on faith. Just like Evolutionists have to take the idea of Evolution as a theory of origin on faith.

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by airhead
Evolution has created some pretty big hurdles for itself as the gene mapping becomes better. Some of the \"steps\" are fairly large and don\'t really make sense genetically.

I can follow the tiny horse up to modern horse, but I have a hard time going from protoplanton to armored trilobite to fish to mammal. Even from tricerotops to cattle is a fairly large leap to accept.

I\'m not sure what these \"leaps\" represent to you? Cattle (originating around 20 million years ago) didn\'t evolve directly from Triceratops (>65 million years ago). In fact, they didn\'t even evolve from them at all, since all mammals are descended from a lineage that diverged from that of reptiles, dinosaurs and birds around 275 million years ago. In the most terminal sense, Triceratops has no descendants since like all other dinosaur species except birds, they went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous.

How do we know this? A combination of comparing the physical attributes of fossils, and \"molecular phylogenetics\" (sometimes a.k.a. the \"DNA clock\")

 

[Einion]

Originally posted by alextheartist
You also have to remember that Darwin himself declared his theory a load of bull after he developed it.

Achem, more research please!

Originally posted by No Such Agency
What bothers me is when people claim science itself is a matter of faith, when science never demands that you believe something without evidence. I trust a lot of scientific findings I haven\'t personally scrutinized, but that\'s different from faith.

Nicely put.

Originally posted by airhead
Evolution has created some pretty big hurdles for itself as the gene mapping becomes better. Some of the \"steps\" are fairly large and don\'t really make sense genetically.

Actually they do. Genetic change, being a matter of mutation, can be a large or small change.

Originally posted by airhead
Even from tricerotops to cattle is a fairly large leap to accept.

Well that\'s easy - cattle aren\'t descended from triceratops so no problem there

Originally posted by mattrock
Even if you could prove all that, prove the \'primordial soup\'. Not only is there no proof of the soup, there\'s not even any evidence. There has never been an experiment done where science could reproduce the origin of life from non-life.

Actually an experiment formed amino acids recently (repeatably) by just providing the right materials and building blocks. These amino acids exhibit clumping behaviour, which may be the very nascent origins of a cell wall.

Originally posted by mattrock
Changes in species happen over time and that is called evolution. I\'m fine with that. But evolution as a theory of origin holds no more water than ID or anything else because THERE SIMPLY IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT A THEORY OF ORIGINS.

Inferential evidence is still evidence. It\'s difficult to accept for the layman but it\'s the basis for our understanding of stellar mechanics for example, the behaviour of sub-subatomic particles. We don\'t generally have much trouble accepting the science based on those particular sets of inferences. But then those subjects aren\'t now generally a religious hot-button topic.

Originally posted by mattrock
We have to take the idea of Intelligen Design on faith. Just like Evolutionists have to take the idea of Evolution as a theory of origin on faith.

Not the same. One needs no proof whatsoever, the other requires proof and evidence of certain kinds to be accepted - and the peer review is pretty damned harsh.

Einion

 

[Amazon warrior]

If I had to fit a creator figure into my mental picture of evolution, it would be right at the start. God (or whoever) twiddles his fingers, starts the spark of life, then sits back, puts his feet up with a beer and watches the resulting process. It\'s time saving and entertaining! lol

Right, back to the caption thread. I\'ve evolved enough to keep my answers to threads like this short and irrelevant!

 

[EArkham]

Originally posted by mattrock
This is what I\'m talking about. If it was proven, it\'d be the law of evolution, not the theory.

In the tradition of The Princess Bride, \"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.\"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

No, I\'m not revealing which \"side\" I\'m on, but whether you\'re arguing for or against, you should at least be using the same terminology.

Kep

 

[wiccanpony]

tossing more oil on the fire


ahhh..... but who’s “creationism” are we going to teach?..as I’m Wiccan

 

[Prophet]

Originally posted by alextheartist

I think it\'s more about accepting the whole package in that case. The entire Bible as it is. People are becoming Christians all the time so I don\'t think it is necessary parental indoctrination.

I agree, i was at a huge christian festival in the UK a few weeks back and there are loads of teens becoming christians without any influence from their parents.

You also have to remember that Darwin himself declared his theory a load of bull after he developed it.

Alex [/quote]

You wouldn\'t happen to have a reference for that assertion would Alex? Didn\'t think so.

The percentage of people who identify themselves as Christian, at least in the US, has been dropping by about 1% per year. By 2030, Christians will be a minority.

 

[mattrock]

Originally posted by wiccanpony
tossing more oil on the fire


ahhh..... but who’s “creationism” are we going to teach?..as I’m Wiccan

I really don\'t care who\'s. I think they should all be evaluated on merits.

The thing that bugs me isn\'t that the Christian idea of ID is specifically discarded as \"blind faith\" (which is an erroneous statement and reveals a fundamental lack of understanding regarding both the Christian position and the concept of faith in the first place), but that ALL other possiblities are discounted in favor of the almighty theory of evolution as though it were already some sort of forgone conclusion, which is most certainly is not. Evolution simply wouldn\'t be as hotly a contested topic if the case it made for origins were as airtight as it\'s proponents claim that it is.

Anyway, having had this debate on this forum several times already and having stated in my first post that I didn\'t want to get too deep into the worm can, now is as good a time as any to take leave of this debate. I\'m certainly not going to be winning hearts and minds anyway, and I come here to be light-hearted and goofy with the other mini-denizens around here. :drunk:

I\'ve got to get back over to the 12k thread and make some more fun of supervike.

 

[airhead]

And that shoe rests well on the other foot too.

 

[hakoMike]

Irrefutable proof:

 

[Prophet]

Originally posted by mattrock
Without digging too far into that can, I\'m with Shawn on this one. I just don\'t have enough faith for Darwinian evolution as a theory of origins.

Evolution happens, it\'s been proven to a degree. That said, evolution isn\'t the whole story and to believe that it is seems more like religion than science to me.

Having grown up in the church, I can completely empathize with your opinion. I went to a Christian high school where I was taught that evolution was a religion made up by nerds so they could convince women that God wasn\'t real in order to improve their chances of getting laid. Paraphrasing of course. I still have a copy of an interview with Dr. Jack Cuozzo (a Creationist that claims Neanderthals were regular humans who look different because they lived to be 900, just like in the Bible) in which he claims to have received death threats just for challenging evolution.

It\'s all propaganda. What you\'ll find in a Bible book store or creationist websites is written by the choir for the choir. And the choir is scientifically ignorant and not particularly adept at critical thinking (the Bible isn\'t real heavy on that). Anyone can make a claim in a book. It\'s telling that there are no peer reviewed papers on creation or intelligent design. Those positions are as defensible as arguing that the the earth is flat.

Biology cares as much about your religion as astronomy cares about your horoscope.

There isn\'t any any controversy regarding the overarching theory of evolution. It\'s accepted by 99.6% of scientists working in related fields. The only controversy is in regards to public opinion.

There are at least half a dozen independent lines of evidence that strongly support evolution and common descent. As strong as the fossil evidence is, the biochemical evidence for evolution is magnitudes stronger. It\'s not just the DNA, it\'s retroviruses, it\'s the genetic drift of protein compositions, etc, etc. There are millions and millions of facts that support the theory of evolution. Evolution is the best, and really, only viable explanation for those facts. Every single time a fossil is unearthed, every single time a genome is mapped, it is an opportunity to overthrow evolution. It hasn\'t happened. It\'s very, very, very unlikely that it will. Either a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong, or God is a liar, since everything we\'ve found in the universe contradicts it.

Intelligent Design is not science. It\'s not a theory in the scientific sense. It\'s not even a hypothesis. Anyone with an interest should read Kitzmiller v. Dover. Read star Intelligent Design Proponent Michael Behe\'s cross examination where he admits under oath that under the redefinition that would allow ID to be taught as science, astrology would also qualify.

 

[Prophet]

Originally posted by mattrock

Much of evolution is taken on faith, particularly as it deals with origins and the beginnings of life. There is no empirical evidence to support Darwin\'s theory of \'primodial soup.\' But it is taught with a fervor that elevates it even above other scientific theory to the level of fact.

And \'trusting the findings\' of science without first personally observing empirical evidence only differs from matters of true faith in that you neglected to personally weigh the evidence. Faith is not blind belief. Faith is weighing evidence and making a logical and educated decision to trust in your conclusions while freely admitting that not all the answers are available to be had.

The ONLY way to believe the fullness of Darwinian evolution is indeed, on faith since many questions (particularly surrounding those aspects of the theory that deal with the origins of life) remain unanswered.

So in summary, what you have said is true -- what it really all comes down to, is faith.

Matt,
Evolution doesn\'t deal with origins and the beginning of life. Period. Biology is the study of life. Evolution is the study of how life changes. If it ain\'t alive, it ain\'t biology. The origin of life is a question for the field of biochemistry. It may seem like a matter of side-stepping the issue, but it\'s not. The field of evolution doesn\'t care how life began. As far as abiogenesis is concerned, we have many of the puzzle peices, but no-one has put them together in just the right combo yet. While the specifics of exactly how life began may be undetermined, it doesn\'t change that we do know, with a very large degree of certainty, what happened once life did begin.

 

[junior elf]

As I have already said, evolution is completely proven. There is no doubt. The problem here is that people who have been brought up to not believe in it can and will not change there mind. This is the real problem that the society (at least in the UK) is pushing the youngsters more and more into the religious path.

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by Prophet
It\'s all propaganda. What you\'ll find in a Bible book store or creationist websites is written by the choir for the choir.

Well yeah. That\'s what\'s so frustrating about engaging in this argument. One side of the floor is generally not approaching the subject honestly - they\'re either knowingly misrepresenting themselves, or unknowingly repeating the misrepresentations of others.

The leaders of the creationist movement have no true interest in an \"intelligent designer, we\'re not suggesting who that is\", they are in the game to put explicitly Christian teachings into American public school science classes, where they utterly do not belong. They do NO research, they produce NO evidence, they just nitpick and lie and try to produce as much confusion and doubt as possible.

(Note that I\'m not personally attacking anyone who has posted here, unless they are James Dobson or Michael Behe in which case, more painting and less religiopolitics, guys.)

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by junior elf
As I have already said, evolution is completely proven. There is no doubt. The problem here is that people who have been brought up to not believe in it can and will not change there mind. This is the real problem that the society (at least in the UK) is pushing the youngsters more and more into the religious path.

And if they are on the religious path and they are not interfering with your rights, the question remains: Who frakking cares?
The problem with scientists is that we tend to believe we know everything and we tend to look down on others we see as less educated. We believe if everybody did things our way the world would be a better place. Of course, we have absolutely no proof that this is true, in fact, I\'d go as far and say it is patently false.
Scientists are people, therefore, have their own biases, their own agendas, their own failings.
If someone wants to believe in an all powerful being and they\'re not bothering me then why should I give a flying f@*k.

Evangelical Atheists and evangelical evolutionists are every bit as annoying as evangelical Christians, if not worse, because they are practicing what they profess to despise.

Evil Dave-Physicist

 

[Amazon warrior]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by junior elf
As I have already said, evolution is completely proven. There is no doubt. The problem here is that people who have been brought up to not believe in it can and will not change there mind. This is the real problem that the society (at least in the UK) is pushing the youngsters more and more into the religious path.

And if they are on the religious path and they are not interfering with your rights, the question remains: Who frakking cares?
The problem with scientists is that we tend to believe we know everything and we tend to look down on others we see as less educated. We believe if everybody did things our way the world would be a better place. Of course, we have absolutely no proof that this is true, in fact, I\'d go as far and say it is patently false.
Scientists are people, therefore, have their own biases, their own agendas, their own failings.
If someone wants to believe in an all powerful being and they\'re not bothering me then why should I give a flying f@*k.

Evangelical Atheists and evangelical evolutionists are every bit as annoying as evangelical Christians, if not worse, because they are practicing what they profess to despise.

Evil Dave-Physicist

It probably doesn\'t bother 90% of people- until it becomes a teaching issue. Then people are up in arms over what their kids are or are not learning (cuts both ways...).

 

[evil tendencies]

Originally posted by junior elf
As I have already said, evolution is completely proven. There is no doubt. The problem here is that people who have been brought up to not believe in it can and will not change there mind. This is the real problem that the society (at least in the UK) is pushing the youngsters more and more into the religious path.

I have no problem with the theory of evolution. I start having problems with things when science (the system of measuring measurable quantities) is used to bash religion (which deals with un-measurable quantities). I have an even bigger problem when publicly funded schools use science classes to attack a student\'s religion, rather than sticking to measurable facts and letting parents raise their kids.

 

[freakinacage]

i wouldn\'t trust the bible anyway. if there were a god and those were his words, they have been changed so many times by man that there must be bits that are wrong - look at some black library publications with their spelling mistakes.and they have spell and grammar checkers and aren\'t dodgy translations of arabic tribesmen! also i don\'t like the way thy keep re writing the bible, if god thought something and had it put down, you can\'t just change it later. (for example all the rules for what you can and can\'t eat in leviticus)

thats why i like science, it doesn\'t rely on faith. i like proof