This was the old evolution thread, go to the new thread to post

Science is mostly theory. The scientific laws are really explanations for observations that can be proven time and time agian. When we drop an apple, it falls. (Im aware that gravity is far more complex) We really don't understand it though, we simply have formed an explanation that seems to logicly explain whats happening. One day, the apple may not fall, it is still a possibilty.

I personal feel that there is more happening in this universe then we understand. Evolution can go hand in hand with creationisim. The world was created by the all mighty and evolution lead us to where we are today. Our beliefs will always be based on faith.

[w3r7y]

We can rely on constants.

Everything has it's constants, even science. Science can go further then theories, when it is proved to be true. IE. The apple will always fall because of gravity.

Creationism is great, and I wish that was true, however, it seems to idealistic.
Evolution is getting close, and I feel it is the best way to explain things right now, however, does not make a convincing enough arguement for me to believe in it either.
I like the big band theory, and it is the only way I can think of that makes sense for how everything started. If this was provable, it would confirm the non-existance of a god, and make evolution more believable.
Social darwinism has my vote, natural selection explains a lot of diversities in our world right now.

[The_Dude]

let's all remember that the modern theory of evolution is about 100 years old. that's pretty young.

i believe in evolution, the fact that mutations caused animals to evolve into complex things to suit better to their surroundings.

there are lots of bugs w/ this theory, but i'm sure it'll be worked out pretty soon.

[Anon]

If you are interested in this thread, please view my other thoughts here: Time

[raeanna74]

Personally I believe in creation because I believe in a higher power. I have studied both theories and that is all they are. We cannot prove outright that either one is the truth. One rule of science is that something must be able to be duplicated. Another is that is must be observable. Neither is possible with Creation because no one was there to observe it and no one is as powerful as a diety (in the creation theory) to reproduce creation of something from nothing. Neither is possible with Evolution either we have tried numerous times to find missing links many of which are hoaxes and yet remain in our textbooks simply because it would require those who perpetrated the hoaxes to admit their error. Evolution cannot be observed or duplicated. So The question is do you believe in a higher power that we are all accountable to. If you do not choose to believe that then you must choose to believe evolution. Because neither one can be scientifically proven in those to ways than you must take either theory by faith. You choose what you feel is closest to you set of other beliefs.

[vermin]

My 2 cents:
There are so many holes in the evolution theory that I am amazed anyone could seriously believe in it. At least the 6 days of creation followed a logical progression.

[Phoenix]

What are all these holes in evolution people keep mentioning? I'm wondering if there are actual holes in it or some people just can't comprehend it. Evolution is an observable fact and the theories only come in when trying to figure out the mechanism for it.

[spanky spangler]

Originally posted by w3r7y
I like the big band theory...

Is that the one where Glenn Miller created the Universe?

Reading this thread, i wonder what is taught in US schools on this subject. There seems to be so much mis- and disinformation, and basic lack of understanding. As i posted previously, it's pretty hard to argue against natural selection given diversity and time. A population of 100 gibbons, fruit flies, or Unitarians WILL alter over generations. The sticking point seems to be speciation, but only if your belief system requires a literal interpretation of a tiny part of the Bible. It also seems that people make this an either/or thing, whereas i know people of many faiths and cultures who can reconcile their understanding of a Creator with his/her/its ability to construct the universe to include evolution. Where this seems hardest is if you have the simplest, 18th century anthropic world view, with humanity at the top of a 'ladder of life'. As i said before, the single-celled organisms of this world have us beat in every way, unless your hubris makes you think that self-awareness is anything other that a rare survival trait.

Does your functioning in this world really rely on the arrogant belief that it and everything in it was created for you and your kind? Do you need that knowledge just to get by? Why does it make a difference?

[pazza]

the main thing i have against the evolution theory; sohuldnt there be some half man half monkey creatures somewhere in the process of evolution. What has been the last animal that has seen to evolved?

[Macheath]

Some reading you might be interested in pazza:

http://www.classicreader.com/read.ph...id.107/sec.69/

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...mber=5&catID=2

[John Henry]

The notion that for the univese to exist, it had to come from somewhere relies on the principle that for something to come into being, it has to have come from something else. This would imply that whatever the universe came from came from something else and so on ad infinitum. If God can come from nowhere and be infinite and wonderful, then why can't the universe?

I think that asking how the universe came to being is missing the point a little. The question we should really be asking is 'So, what's for dinner?'

[Empty_One]

Well, since I don't beleive in a sentient "Higher Power" I would have to go with evolution. To me, the bible was a book written to explain the unknown, and give the people a basic set of moralistic guidelines. For the same reasons the Greeks and Romans and their Gods that performed feats they were at the time unable to understand, so goes the idea of Creationism. It anserws the question of how did we get here.

Evolution may not be 100% correct, and we may never know. It is a decision based on faith, my God just happens to be Science.



And if it is totally off base, and proved to be wrong, Evolution is still a kick ass email client.

[raeanna74]

Originally posted by Phoenix
What are all these holes in evolution people keep mentioning? I'm wondering if there are actual holes in it or some people just can't comprehend it. Evolution is an observable fact and the theories only come in when trying to figure out the mechanism for it.

Evolution in an upward progression has NOT been OBSERVED by any human. State one instance of evolution that any human has observed and recorded and hasn't been proven a hoax or mistake in the end. As I've said before according to the rules of science a fact must be observable and able to be duplicated to be a true fact. Either theory must be taken by faith. We do not have true scientific evidence that proves either one to be true. Only some scientific evidence that can be used to support the respective THEORIES. A creation or evolution stand MUST be a stand of faith alone in that theory. You choose which to believe but you cannot PROVE that either one is right or wrong. I believe in creation but I'll be the first to admit that it cannot be proven. Neither can evolution.

[Serpent]

Actually there is an evolution of sorts that has been recorded. That is human height average becoming higher, and people living longer. This is evolution folks..

Sorry high was ment to be height.

[raeanna74]

True evolution is a change in the structural or functioning ability of a creature to adapt to it's surroundings. The ability of humans to live longer is simply the building of technology to adapt to the surroundings. When I speak of evolution I'm not speaking of technological evolution but of the improvement in the physical body to adapt. You have to look at all the things involved. We have more diseases now than ever. The only reason they are lengthening the average lifespan is our technological means - antibiotics, vaccines, and sterile medical precedures. Also if you go back to early recorded history there were many who lived to a much older age than people currently do. It wasn't the average but there are fewer of those that reach that age now than before. We have not grown in any physical way to adapt. That is the basic evolution that must be observed.

[BBtB]

Originally posted by Serpent
Actually there is an evolution of sorts that has been recorded. That is human high average becoming higher, and people living longer. This is evolution folks..

Okay I am not sure what "human high average becoming higher" means at all... But I will address humans living longer. That is not evolution. Atleast not biological macroevolution which is a more fitting name then just evolution. That is a sign of medical advances mostly. And as for holes in evolution? Well how about the millions and I do mean millions of missing links? I mean its not just the missing links between apes and man (or between man and apes common ancestor. Which is just another theory created to explain the gaps between apes and man although I don't see how it works because there are even more gaps between man and an older ancestor) but what about all the other missing links? Even if they were "evolved out" shouldn't there atleast be some fossils? And another thing I want to address, someone stated that evolution is the common belief among scientist. Which is true. But of all the scientist that do believe in evolution many of them disagree on very key facets. There are also many scientist that do not believe in it at all as well. Or ones that believe in it as a coencide with creationism. Now let as not forget though, just because something is popular does not mean it is right. Slavery used to be very popular. But looking more at science lets not forget that there was a time when the general scientific community KNEW that earth was the center of the universe. There was a time that they KNEW the world was flat. My point being simply this. Just because it is "science" does not mean we should not question it.


EDIT: Just had to rant a few more things out. I am not arguing against micro evolution. Basically that if given the chance creatures can, over time, grow to be stronger,faster and smarter. And as they do so the faster,stronger and smarter ones would live longer and have more children. But that dosn't mean that eventully a cat will become a dog. I have never seen an example of selective breeding or anything that was able to come up with a new creature. A faster dog, yes. A meater cow, prehaps. But where are all the pot bellied elephants? Another thing, Were have we ever observed mutations to be good? I mean a mutation by any other name is.. cancer. Prehaps one day the cancer victims shall rule the earth. In time....

[greytone]

I am a little frustrated that so many people, both in this thread and in person, define evolution erroneously and this "disprove" this mistaken understanding of evolution. I have never in my life heard a single argument against the existance of evolution made by anyone who understood it. I am not making this statement to spread flames. I am simply trying to get across the idea that if you learned about evolution in public schools, you are likely to have been given a very false impression of what the theory is all about.

It was said earlier in the thread, but I must repeat it. The evolution of man does NOT state that we evolved from existing primates. Both us, and the other primates are "equally" evolved. Both are suited to our enviornments. The other primates are approaching extinction because their enviornments have changed.

Evolution DOES NOT favor self awareness or complexity over simplicity. Any biological "design" that leads to reproduction is favored. It HAS been PROVEN that a slight advantage of survival of one trait over another can lead to a dramatic change in gene frequency over just a few generations. That IS evolution and it has been documented and it has been proven beyond ANY doubt. Just look at the change in the frequency of the black versus white moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. The question is not if evolution exists. It very clearly does. The real question is one of "Is natural selection the primary force behind the development of homo sapiens and is evolutionary theory broad enough to explain life as we know it?"

I believe without any hesitation that in the known universe, evolution is a satisfactory explanation of all known facts. Philosophy and religion are here to deal with why the universe is. That is where creationism belongs.

[Slims]

ahem, here is an interview with Douglas Adams on religion. It is not 'exactly' on topic, but it is close enough and he is far more eloquent than any of us. (Whether you agree with him is another matter).

http://www.americanatheist.org/win98...silverman.html

Read it, it is interesting.

[Macheath]

Originally posted by BBtB
But that dosn't mean that eventully a cat will become a dog. I have never seen an example of selective breeding or anything that was able to come up with a new creature. A faster dog, yes. A meater cow, prehaps. But where are all the pot bellied elephants?

Please read links or I'll just post them, and some are LONG.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...mber=5&catID=2

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Here is a short list of referenced speciation events. I picked four relatively well-known examples, from about a dozen that I had documented in materials that I have around my home. These are all common knowledge, and by no means do they encompass all or most of the available examples.

Example one:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example two:

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example three:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example four:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

By James Meritt
Someone writes:

I have a friend who says since we have never seen a species actually split into two different species during recorded history that he has trouble believing in the theory of evolution. Is this bogus and have humans seen animals bred into different species? (The various highly bred english dogs come to mind but I suppose this would be easier to find in vegetation. Corn, wheat strains? Donkeys and mules? )

This is bogus. We've seen it happen naturally without our tampering with the process. From the FAQ:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed an breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.

[Phoenix]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by raeanna74
The ability of humans to live longer is simply the building of technology to adapt to the surroundings. When I speak of evolution I'm not speaking of technological evolution but of the improvement in the physical body to adapt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Humans are in a different position than all other organisms because we have such great communication skills. We don't need to physically adapt anymore. If a new ice age comes we'll build underground cities with great heating and everyone will live. Humans socially evolve, and this evolution happens much more rapidly than natural selection. So that's why we don't see any physical adaptation in humans anymore...and probably won't. Also, evolution has been duplicated millions times over in every species. Every species of the Galapagos islands is specifically adapted to that island. Greytone said it, and I'll say it again. Evolution is an observable fact.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BBtB
Even if they were "evolved out" shouldn't there atleast be some fossils?...

...there was a time when the general scientific community KNEW that earth was the center of the universe. There was a time that they KNEW the world was flat.

Were have we ever observed mutations to be good? I mean a mutation by any other name is.. cancer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everything that dies doesn't become a fossil. For an organism to stay preserved as a fossil it has to die in or around certain chemicals or rocks. This is a freak occurence and over time so many things have died that many fossils were left but this is only a fraction of what existed. But we have found enough fossils to connect the dots with great certainty. You don't need every last piece of the puzzle to know what it represents.

Scientists never knew the earth was flat. They thought it was because it made the most sense to them. They never observed the earth or had gathered facts to prove this like they have evolution.

Mutations are one of the 5 mechanisms of evolution along with natural selection (I think it's 5 if I remember correctly). Cancer is only mutations in genes regulating cell growth. Many other genes can be mutated to give an organism a greater chance at survival. I work with bacteria and when you put them under harsh conditions they begin to randomly mutate their own genes. Most of them die because they mutate genes at the wrong places, but by chance there's always a few cells that hit a certain gene that lets them live.

[vermin]

2 more cents (after actually thinking before I type)

As I read over the posts of this thread again, it occured to me that the basic problem with this argument (discussion) is that we don't all start from the same place. If there is no common ground of core beliefs, then it's like arguing opinion: there's no accounting for taste. You either like something or you don't. You either believe that the bible is the infallible word of God, or you believe something else (from my point of view).

Debates are interesting and fun, but if one side completely denies the existance of most of the other side's argument, then there is no debate, just a pissing contest. This applies, I think, to both sides.

In conclusion, I'd just like to say that I have no illusions of changing anyone's mind. Just don't hold the same illusion of changing mine.

[Phoenix]

I don't think anyone is trying to change peoples minds. I would just like both sides to get the facts before making an opinion. That's what it's all about. A lot of people on here bash evolution and we later find out that they don't know that much about it. I know this is not evolution vs. creationism because both can co-exist and many people believe that.

I believe the title of this thread offers the wrong choices. It should be "Creation of the universe: spontaneous natural occurence or created by a higher power?" Because evolution is factual and religion is a belief based on faith and neither of these things actually created the universe.

[raeanna74]

I said it once and I'll say it again. The theories of Evolution as well as creation do not hold to all the basic rules of true science. They are theories only and as such should be treated as being theories and not facts. There is much evidence for both sides of the debate the individual interprets it to fit their belief. I'm not trying to disprove evolution I'm just trying to get you guys to face up to the fact that both are THEORIES not FACT but only can be supported by various facts. Ask any scientist and he will tell you that they are theories only. We have not actually observed things grow feathers though we've found creatures with feathers. We've found mammals with bills (ie the platypus) but it hasn't been observed as being evolution. I believe in natural selection. If something cannot grow to adapt it will die out that is why the change in the number of dark to light moths as mentioned earlier. In that situation nature did select the more fit creature to survive and proliferate. It did not cause the light moths to grow dark spots as evolution would do. Please accept the fact that they are BOTH theories not FACT. They each are supported by different facts.

[GoldenOuroboros]

Shouldn't the heading be 'Evolution or Creation?' ?

[louiedog]

If people believe in both and think that nothing could have been created without a higher power.... how was the higher power created? If this higher power has just always been then why can't we have a theory that says stuff in space has always just been?

[lightbulbs]

even Aristotle with all his studies stated that there has to be something out there

Aristotle also believed that there was a form for every object in the univserse. The though there was a god created shape for tables, screws, everything.

All you have to do and take a couple years of biology you would know that life can be created from nitrogen, carbon, oxygen and several other commonly found elements in the earth's atmosphere. We had to do it in a test tube in my junior biology class at Uconn.

If you want proof of evolution, just look at the flu virus. Notice how you have to get a new shot every year? That's because the virus goes through evolution every year that makes it resistant against previous medinces. The reason it that small, especially single-celled organisms, evolution as a rate thats thousands of times faster than more complex organisms like humans. Whales are an example to use here. Around 50 million years ago they used to be live on land, with the proof being located in the fact that their skeleton contains hips with 3 foot long legs attached.

Want more proof, look at the humans of europe a million year ago. Look at all the changes they went through to adapt the current human we see today.

To say to an educated person that evolution does not exist is like saying the earth is the center of the universe. The evidence is everywhere that is exists and happens every day. To learn more enroll in a general ecology class at your local university.

Cadet Name Withheld
National Guard Cadet

[Phoenix]

IBefore the industrial revolution there were only peppered moths. Black moths couldn't live long enough to reproduce because they stood out on the peppered tree trunk. Once the pollution started turning the tree trunks black, black moths appeared and peppered moths were gone. This is an example of chance mutation in the color pigment of this moth and this new mutation being favored.

So basically we got something different that wasn't there before. Nature didn't select the black moths over the peppered moths, it selected for the chance mutation in the species that created a more fit individual.

So you don't think evolution is a fact because we haven't observed an animal acquire feathers in the few thousand years we keep written records. Fine. I'm in the scientific community and evolution is an open and shut case that is accepted throughout.

We know there weren't always birds, humans, insects on this planet. We know there used to be only less complex organisms a long time ago. So where did all these new organisms come from at different times?

louiedog, I think there are theories that the universe has just always been there. That's what I think.

*good post lightbulbs. There's nothing much to say after that .

[lightbulbs]

Originally posted by louiedog
If people believe in both and think that nothing could have been created without a higher power.... how was the higher power created? If this higher power has just always been then why can't we have a theory that says stuff in space has always just been?

That is an example of the Unmoved mover, the all eternal creater.

As for the universe, most scienctist believe it was always there, just in a clump ball of extreme gravity that reached critcal mass and exploded, similar to the way a nuclear bomb works. The reason most people believe in the big bang theory is because the universe is falling apart. Its constantly moving apart, as can be observed with the Red Shift Theory.

What that is the observation that the universe is seen as red, because red is the slowest moving color in the visible spectrum. Blues move faster than the spread of the universe so we dont see them but the red colors are left behind showing that the universe is moving apart from a single focal point.

The gravity to create such a tightly packed ball of mass is known to exist because black holes show that to us everyday. A black hole is estimated to be the size of a couple inches across but packs the gravity of several million Sun's. Its powr is currently observable because there is one black hole thats being documented as its shallowing an entire cluster of stars.

Also be rating the gravity of the universe we know what 90% of it is located within black holes, know as dark matter, or invisible space, while the parts that we can see makes up only 10% of the universe.

Thats my explaination of the big bang theory.

[raeanna74]

Ok since you refuse to simply admit that evolution is a theory alone and not fact but only supported by certain interpretations of fact then I will offer evidence to argue some of your claims.

First off the Archaeopteryx: There were several articles which appeared in the British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985 issues) declaring Archaeopteryx to be a carefully contrived hoax. These articles were authored by some of the leading scientists in England at the time: Fred Hoyle, R.S. Watkins, N.C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov, and L.M. Spetner.

Hoyle, Watkins, and others decided that the body skeleton and arms were genuine, but that the feather markings (those shallow lines radiating outward from the forelimbs) were carefully imprinted on the fossil by an unknown hand.

Next in regards to the moths and goats beards. This is called Microevolution. "Microevolution" is change within a species, but this is adaptation and not evolution, as most experts will admit. "Macroevolution" is change between species, and must always lie at the heart of evolutionary theory. Without macroevolution, evolution does not occur.

Microevolution is only a portion of the predetermined DNA code becoming predominant by "natural selection". The basic code is already there and it has not changed. It is that way with the cold and flu virus. It is that which happened with the moths and the goats beards. The code was there to begin with. Which code was predominating was determined by the environment.

"An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."—*Michael Ruse, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 828.

Huxley, Charles Darwin's personal champion, made a startling admission that follows.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation."—*Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903).

"It is therefore a matter of faith, on the part of the biologist, that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 150.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."—*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

And last but not least:
"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power."—*T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).

This states so well what you have been doing here. By simply refusing to admit that Evolution is a theory and thus changeable you are claiming it as your religion.

All of the quotes above were either from credible scientific scientific sources which are predominately evolutionistic or they are quoted from respected scientists who are evolutionists themselves.

I have not once in my previous posts tried to disprove evolution because we cannot even debate the two theories until both sides agree that both Evolution and Creation are theories. Now you have information that refutes your so called "proof". At the very least admit it is a theory.

[krwlz]

i have a question...in the end does it really matter? we are here now, so lets make the best of it for ourselves, and the next generation, eh?

[Macheath]

raeanna74, the examples I provided in a previous post were speciation events, instances where the organisms were classified a different species from their ancestor. This is NOT a simple microevolution within a species - it is macroevolution. Two tests used for speciation in taxonomy are inability to breed with ancestor species and morphology.

I will post the link again.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Archaeopteryx is not a hoax. Those claims have been refuted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/arch...x/forgery.html

[sarcasm]
Personally I hate those physicists who go around preaching relativity which is not a fact but just a theory. Gravity on the other hand is not just a good idea, it's the law.

How did Karl Popper think he was going to win over a flock with all of that vacillating falsifiability nonsense.[/sarcasm]

[greytone]

Raeanna74,

Evolution is not "just" a theory. It IS a theory. Admiting it is not a problem for scientists because they understand what the word means. The use of the word does not imply that it is an untested wild idea. My old dictionary has four definitions, the first of which is "the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art." The overwhelming amount of data supports the theory. There are few people who claim the title of scientist because they attained the appropriate degrees, who then are guided by their religious principles. They can not accept evolution and misrepresent facts and ideas in a way that makes them popular with people who do not understand how fundamentally flawed their arguments are. Every time I have reviewed the writings or arguments of one of these "biologists" I have been left with the conclusion that they were, at best, being intellectually dishonest with themselves. I stand by my origianal statement that I have ran across anyone who understands the modern theory of Evolution and still considers it unproven.

So-called microevolution is evolution in that it is change over time. Granted, it is not speciation, but it remains an important, but incomplete part of the larger body of data that proves the theory of Evolution.

I will give you another example of how the idea of how the use of the word theory can be misleading.

There are two theories about the ultimate nature of matter. One is that matter is composed of particles. The other, waveforms. The irony is that both theories are true and have been proven so repeatedly. They have been merged into one theory and although the facts that make up that theory are proven, the word theory is still used to describe a body of knowledge.

[raeanna74]

Ok I am not going to argue semantics since when you start changing definitions you will prolong this debate ad infinitum. You even seem to completely ignore the quote from Darwin's own main supporter that, evolution when accepted as pure fact becomes a religion. I'll leave you to your religion now. You refuse to admit that there might be some holes in the theory of evolution. When you have a closed mind such as that there is no possibility for true discovery in the future. I am sorry that you have lost that desire for the search for truth whatever it may be. Goodbye

[BudTheSpud]

I always thought that it had to start somewhere, I think maybe evolution and a higher power both had a start in all this. Gases created teh big bang, what made the gases? What made the stuff that made the gases that made the big bang? You cant make something out of nothing right? I was thinking maybe some higher power put one thing there, and that started the whole process, and that higher power just did that one thing, and left the rest to evolution. Like adding one ingredient to a bowl of water and over time a steaming bowl of chicken noodle soup is there after a couple of billion years. Of course thats not realistic, but its just saying that one thing started everything. And it cant have been created from nothing.

[Phoenix]

I think he ignored that quote because it is but one man's 100 year old opinion. If you agree with it, fine by me.

I don't think any more evidence will ever satisfy you. The word religion cannot be used here. We're all trying to find out the truth, and the facts gathered up to now point in one direction. That's the direction we're taking for now while we keep gathering more info and if something comes up that changes everything then we'll go that way. That's all we can really do.

[Tophat665]

Science is the only religion that allows parts of itself to be disproven. On the strength of that, I have got to go with evolution.

Further, there is a correlation between creationism and fundamentlist wackiness. Not necessarily an identity, but a correlation I have yet to find an exception to. On the strength of that, creationism couldn't possibly be true.

Truth is, there's always a bigger fish.

My world, however, started when I was born, and will end when I die, so the whole debate is kind of silly from that perspective.

[Orodinn]

First of all, I think it's stupid when people try to consolidate religion and science. The whole point is about finding which is right. If you believe some things just because of faith with no further backup, then it's not science anymore.

One thing's for sure, the answer does exist. Wether is can be understood by mere humans, let alone put into words on a message board is another question. The answer though obviously resides either in religion or science (is there any other possibilities?). I, for one, believe that humans with their science as their only tool won't ever be able get ahold of the truth and that we'll just philosophise our time has come.

I think believing in God is the easy solution, the thing people choose to believe in because they fail to find any other explanation. Still, if the theory is an existing God could answer all our questions, then I really couldn't say anything about it. The thing is, that theory just raises more questions than it answers. I'm not going into dept here, but believing in God means many things. Before jumping into the creation-of-the-universe theory, if you're to use God as your main backup point, then it'd be pretty useful to define what is God and what believing in God implies. I've yet to meet one single person who could tell me about his God theory without hundreds of flaws. Although right now science doesn't cover everything we'd like answered, at least, it's not flawed. I prefer to rely on philosophy.

The last thing I'd like to say is this. I think people are trying to concretize things to much. Giving humans attributes to God is something that I see too often. If he did create humans out of love, then he wouldn't be so perfect anymore. People are always trying to make things more concrete just so they can understand things better. They give meanings to their lives with illusions they themselves create. I don't ever think we'll find the true meaning of to our existence as I've stated earlier and I don't think we can hold the truth (as in we're way to limited in intelligence and in our conceptions). If we did, life wouldn't be meaningful anymore. People are often trying to place the creation of the universe in a timeline. Then again, that's just concretization. You have to realize that time, just like space, is only a dimension. Maybe that if we could see beyond time and space, we could have a better understanding of things. Unfortunately, our limited brain won't let that as in our conception, nothing exists without time or space.

[Orodinn]

Another thing. Believing in God to me is just like believing in a fairy tale. I might as well believe that we're living in the matrix and noone could prove me wrong. Or I could just choose to believe in some random story i've heard that made some sense and noone could ever prove me wrong. In fact, believing in the matrix makes 10000x more sense as of today to me than believing in God (just because of all the innacuracies and contradictions in the Bible).

Final thing, evolution is theory. BUT, everything we've discovered SO FAR, leads to believe that it is fact. But then again, I could just say that the law of gravity is only theory too and that all experiences made on the subject are coincidences and noone could disprove me. In fact, physics and biology (evolution) are not "pure" science. The laws enounced by those are but from empirical evidences. But do you truly believe that during all that time, gravity (and evolution) was but coincidence and luck? The only pure science there is are mathematics.

[SecretMethod70]

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
I believe there is no reason what so ever that both cannot be totally acceptable. Creationism and evolution could easily be the same thing. Debating this ranks right up there with the chicken/egg debacle. If you go with creationism you deal with earth, man, etc. being created over an indeterminate period of time - Why couldn't this be evolution?

That's exactly what I believe. Unless you subscribe to a more fundamentalist religion and interpret the Bible literally, there is nothing that says that Ged didn't/couldn't have created the universe through the "big bang" and humans through evolution.

[harry]

In my opinion evolution explains best how the different species on earth came into existence. There are many examples of evolution actually taking place - in fact gardeners and dog-breeders make a living out of using the principles of genetic variation and, in this case, artificial selection, which are both integral parts of evolution.

Of course that does'nt disprove that some kind of supernatural being came up with the ideas of genetic variation and sexual reproduction (thanks for that, btw) in the first place. God's existence cannot be disproved, but it can't be proved either (thats what being supernatural is about, I guess).

Okay, one more thing - the increase of human body height in the developed countries ist not hereditary but merely a result of better diet, as far as i know - feed your child rice and bones and it wont outgrow you (hint).