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

The one thought that nobody has ever been able to figure out, is how humans, the earth and the universe were created. Everyone has their own opinion. I want to leave this thread open for everyone to explain their personal theories with information to back them up..

I dont want to offend anyones religion so if you get offended easily, stop reading now...

The first question we must look at is if there is a god or not. Was the human race created by a higher power? How do we all have the perfect bodies that allow us to see, smell, reproduce, breathe and eat. Simpily evolution couldnt give us all of these features.. So what did?

Another thought I would like to bring up is about time. The universe had to start somewhere, but how did it start? There are many theories about this subject, some too far complex for people un understand..

Post your opinions.. Hopefully some of you are smart and can explain some of these mysteries to me..

evolution is a theory that has many good ideas but it has far to many flaws so it should not be stated as truth. Now as a fellow philosopher I've studied this concept very carefully and even Aristotle with all his studies stated that there has to be something out there, something powerfull, all knowing, that created us all. Now, I've thought about this subject alot, and have seen that to beleive that this ultimate being actually walked this earth os prety much garbage, for a being so perfect would never join such a inferior race. Now you asked the same question 4 times, you just re-worded it, so here is the answer to your question, the idea of a deity existing is a very good one for the beggining of everything cannot be explaned without there being such a being. Now, you can ask the question, How can one beleive in something that is not there...well, my friend, thats what faith is, faith=to believe in something that cannot be explained. But in my personal view of the universe, yes, there definitly is a God, its the only thing that explains everything. if anyone has any other questions just email me Mario@sodanca.com
there you go

Evolution obviously. It's science. What's religion got to do with it?

Universe was evolving a lot more ago before humans and their shitty religions came.

i think evolution can definatly explain how we evolved so perfectly, especially when you can see through the fossil records the failed modifictions that didn't make it.

i personally do not believe in god. i believe that there may be something, a higher power if you want, but we have no way of knowing, no way of sensing or detecting him/her/it. if there is one, i highly doubt it gives a half shit about what we do, and if it does, i think as long as you try to lead the best life you can, that's what counts.

i think evolution is a good, and solid theory about how we became what we are, and while the big bang isn't the best theory yet on the origin of the universe, i think it is plausible and needs more testing and maybe some modification, i don't know.

that's my 2 cents, take it for what it's worth, even if that's just a penny.

Evolution is the best theory we have to describe the mechanics of how we came to exist. Any other theory is not really a "theory" in the classical sense in that they do not shape the theory to fit the facts, rather they shape the facts to fit the theory.

Now if you want to know why I believe we're here, that is another thread which has nothing to do with science.

both evolution and creationism have failed to address the question "Where did it all start?". I personally believe in a mix of both theories.

Exactly, why can't you have it both ways?

Why can't you believe in "Gods" AND believe in the power of evolution.

People limit themselves to a few scant choices, then fit the evidence to agree with their personal beliefs. We mold the data to fit our sphere of space and what we can't explain or choose not to explain we give credit to an outside intervening all powerful force.

Evolution and Creationism are only two sides of the same object. I think that if we look hard enough and with a little objectivity we will find that the object has many much more interesting sides as well.:o

Given a choice, I'd much rather believe in Creationism, but I haven't read much into either of them.

The Theory of Evolution is just that. It is scientific conjecture based on the best empirical evidence available. The remaining creationist thoughts are based on faith, which requires no evidence. In this light one cannot be used to debunk the other, though some of our greatest scientific and philosphical advances were made trying by believers trying to prove (or disprove) the existence of God.

I personally would be much more impressed with a God that could create a single molecule with the potential to evolve than to imagine "Him" walking around with a magic wand.

I am agnostic to evolution. I believe it could possibly be true but at this time there is just not enough solid evidence. There is some evidence but there is alot of flaws as well. I believe in a supreme being of some sort but not the christian god. If anything I would say Judiasim is the most in the area. As with evolution though there is alot of holes in religion as well.

:eek:
I though you people were extinct a century ago. (no offence intended, just wondering)

Last I checked I'm not extinct, no need to worry your pretty little head.

The only problem that I have with this statement is that not all science is fact. There are a lot of times when it is just theory. I'm not taking the side of creationism on this one, but I do think that putting all of your faith into science without at least having some questions as to the credibility of the source is a little naive. There are a number of times when scientists will not agree with one another and will have differing theories on a subject.

*steps off of soap box*

Evolution easily, Religion doesn't explain anything about the universe or it's creation.
It's hard to try to figure out it's creation though since we cannot see around the universe, and how it's difficult to explain something's creation when there couldn't have been anything before it.
Tim Leary really got me thinking when he said the universe is like the human brain with billions of small peices that were more powerful than anything we can imagine. This brings up an idea that the universe is our mind, when we peer out into space we're really looking into our own brains in a collective sense. Or we could all be a small fraction of another being's brain, perhaps the brain of "God".
We just don't know, and we'll probably never know. How can we figure out the universe around us when we can't even figure out ourselves and why we're here? Maybe the answers of both fall under the same reasoning.

For me, probability is enough of a formative principle to get a universe started.

Total non-existence would be an unstable state. Probability would initiate an event - a ripple of space time. And from there, many universes would ensue.

The self-evidence of the universe answers the question of its existence and creation.

The problem isn't how things got here. The problem is the way we think about things, causality, time, space, etc.

We ask mostly irrelevant questions.

First, we must understand the difference between evolution and Evolution. There is no doubt that evolution occurs because there are species that have changed or become extinct during human history. Much of this has been the direct result of human intervention (ie, animal breeding). The real question is, does the theory if Evolution explain the existance of life as we witness it. Keep in mind that Darwin was not the first to propose a theory of evolution. His great achievement was in understanding that evolution occured by natural selection acting on inherited (not acquired) characteristics. Gregor Mendel's work in genetics was not well known at the time. Lamark had thought that animals pass on characteristics they aquire after birth.

There is more than biological evolution. There are also cosmic, astrological, geological, and social evolution occuring at the same time. Each of these have different mechanisms and rules. Evolution is inevitable in a universe that includes time as a dimension, because change and time can not exist with out the other.

There is nothing about Darwin's theories that exclude a diety as the ultimate cause of life. He does not address the initial origin of life in the primordial soup. He certainly does not address the ultimate cause of creation of the universe. Here I am not speaking of his personal beliefs, but rather the the modern version of Darwin's theories.

I believe that God created the universe and gave it rules that ultimately led to where we are. That is a far more impressive version of creation than people could comprehend 5000 years ago when Genesis was first told over campfires.

I also believe that Darwin was a genius and his work is the central tenet of all of modern Biology. His ideas have been firmed up over the last century as we have come to understand molecular genetics. I am sure there are details in his writing that are not accurate, but that does not take away from his accomplishments.

evolution. i dont know anyone (even people who go to church regularly) who deny the theory of evolution

evolution... but i believe that someone/something had to start it all though... kinda dont always know what to think about the whole thing though

religion was made possible by evolution.....

just playing devils advocate emotion, i believe in evolution.

however...given evolution, how can you explain the actual life? what makes the chemical compounds in our bodies move and breathe and everything? rather then sit on the ground like dirt? same thing about plants really, but still, makes you see that maybe, just maybe sumthing is out there....

i dont know though, i tend not to believe in any religious ideas, because im opposed to organized religion, i have my own sketchy beliefs...

Its funny that this topic has ended up as a thread. I was recently debating this very issue with a close friend of mine. He is a devout born again Christian and I received a classical education form the University of Toronto, majoring in evolutionary biology. So far, our heated disscussions have not ended our friendship, but we have agreed to disagree.

So what does this mean to the rest of you?

I too could not see how anyone with an education could believe that that the incredable diversity of life on this planet could have been created a few thousand years ago in six days. (Remember, even God needed to rest on the seventh!) My buddy is educated and has a thriving business providing IT services to his clients. He can weave a path through the complexities of a networking problem, but he could not see how we could have evolved from apes.

Of course my arrogance had led me on the crusade to bring my buddy out of the dark ages and into the new century. This had forced me to investigate not only his religious beliefs, but my own also. What I found did not change my idea on the evolution of life, but it did open me up to the flaws in the theory.

First, I must correct some of my fellow members:

Mael, the fossil record has not recorded failed experiments. Each of those lifeforms was successful and was highly evolved for its time. Evolutionary success is measured in an individual's ability to pass on its genetic material on to the next generation. If you believe in evoloution as a series as steps that lead to the diversity found today, then you must accept that the fossil record is a snapshot in time and individual success is measured by what came before it.

Ratman, there is no empirical evidence that supports evolution. This emplies an ability to reproduce the results in support of the thoery. Thats the rub. No one can reproduce phylogeny (the "family tree", so to speak) of any given lifeform, even Homo sapien. One cannot test the theory because time manipulation is impossible.

greytone was correct in stating that Darwin was able to get an idea of the mechanism of natural selection through pigeon breeding, but natural selection is about random chance and domestication of agricultural livestock cannot be compared due its mechanism of directed selection (A farmer "selects" traits when breeding the livestock that are desirable only to the farmer).

Labell, you feel that evolution fits the facts, not fitting the facts to the thoery. Which facts? The fossil record is fragmented at best, with implied relationships between groups of lifeforms. What if these relationships turn out to be artificial and contrived in order to best fit a theory that cannot be tested?

I am not trying to pick on anyone here. I am just trying to open eyes to the flaws in the theory. In comparison, Creationism has it easy. God made everything and it all works because thats how He planned it. Don't have to test a thing because I've got FAITH!

And this is how my arguements ended with my buddy. We agreed to disagree. He has is belief in God and I have my belief in random chance. I'm still not sure who came out on top of all this.

I think they both have strong points and both fail in some areas.. with that being said I believe in Creationism. Just seems more logical to me. It's kind of a dead subject though as no-one will ever really know what happend IMO.

It can all be explained as something man created. Evolution and Creationism could easily be flawed in either respect. What is favoring though is science, something we have used to create many things provides support for Evolution. However, Creationism's support is the bible and word of mouth. So i'd definatly favor Evolution more then Creationism. Also, even though Evolution may only be a theory, we have fossils dated before when the bible says the earth and the universe was created and carbon dating is not a theory science.

I also subscribe to the notion that the universe is an illusion sustained by our delusions.

I am not sure what you mean by "carbon dating is not a theory science" but from all I have read on it (both from secular and non secular sources) it is iffy at best.

its not accurate to the day or hour but to some 75 years (from when the carbon particle was formed), if i'm not mistaken. And what i mean by it not being a theory science, its supported as a law if i'm not mistaken yet again..

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?

I agree that animal husbandry is not natural selection. But it is evolution in the sense that it a change in gene frequency of a given population over time. It is not Evolution as discussed in this thread, but its existence supports the existence of the greater evolution, in my mind. In other words, if we are seeing a change in a species in just a few generations, then how can we deny that natural populations change over time?

Why do we generally gravitate to the simplest answers to explain lifes complex questions.I agree with the last post.Just because you may not believe the position of another person, it doesn't mean they are absolutley wrong.

Of course a common question for evolution is if we evolved from apes why are there still apes? I mean the whole point of it is we are the better suited more evolved apes. Shouldn't the weaker ones have been "naturally selected" out? I mean if the missing link between apes and humans can be "evolved out" of the system why can apes not be?

Well, if we get down to it both Evolution and Creationalism are theories created by man to satisfy the intellect.

The difference between the two is that evolution has a basis in reality and is observable. Creationalism is a fictoinal story and appeals to our irrational side which doesn't want to face the reality.

Ultimately, neither can be said to be the final answer.

Agnosticism, plain and simple. I cannot even begin to ponder about something I only experience on such a small level. And just to help make some things clear, it is ok for catholics to believe in evolution as long as they believe God got the ball rolling.

What if we are the ones who will weed them out over time? It looks as though we may be able to wipe out all lesser species in due time.

On a more serious note, some monkeys, bonobos, are becoming extinct as we speak. Weeding out the gene pool takes millions of years and doesn't just happen over night. We still have a tailbone but no tail. If if it ever goes away it will take time. If something is succesful, there is no reason for it to evolve at a fast pace, or at all. Why mess with what works?

I've always been curious about something. The Big Bang Theory has better solidarity now that findings show our galaxy is expanding out. If that’s the case and the Big Bang is causing our universe to expand outward; what is the space it has not yet expanded to?

LEbell.

No, I don't "feel" anything, I am stating fact. Evolution is currently the best theory for the origin of species. It has been observed on the microlevel and numerous fossils support it on the macro level. No fossils have been discovered that controvert the theory.

The only arguements among scientists regarding evolution center around the exact mechanisms and the pace. There is no serious arguement that evolution is not fact.

I think there is a point where science and religion meet to provide an ultimate answer. I don't know if we humans will ever be able to conceptualize that point and if we ever do, the means we use will be far beyond the conventions of science and religion as we know them now.

In A Brief History of Time, Hawking wrote that a theory of everthing would allow us to "know the mind of God".

Now he has doubts about that statement, thinking that "maybe it is not possible to formulate the theory of the Universe in a finite number of statements."

I know we're a fair way off getting any answers, but we must keep pushing on!

btw BBtB, I don't think humans evolved from apes - rather modern apes and modern humans evolved from common ancestors. Also, there's no guarantee that a "stronger" species will survive over a "weaker" species. It's about which species was "fit" to survive in a particular environment. Again the terminology can be confusing.

This is a common query, based on a basic misunderstanding of natural selection. All the current apes (chimps, gorillas, humans etc) share a common genetic ancestry. Each species has been subject to natural selection to best fit their environment. As that environment changes over time, so natural selection, inevitably, alters those populations. The process of natural selection cannot be denied if one accepts that

a. within a population, a range of characterisitics exists.

b. the membership of that population changes over time.

The phrase 'more evolved' also implies a direction to evolution which does not exist. All that matters is survival in an environment, and by any measure - number, variety, mass, longevity - single cell organisms win, hands down. Perhaps they are in God's image?

Of course, the origin of the Universe isn't really Evolution vs. Creationism, it's Astrophysics vs. Creationism.

Yes, it is fragmented, but on the other hand : what kind of "evidence" do you have for the creatiion? A 2000 year old book. Cool.

Sorry but I still can't understand how people can accept a fairy tale as fact and ignore solid evidence.

See so many people think it HAS to be evolution vs creationism. If you doubt evolution then you MUST believe in creationism. Can there not be a third direction? I personally think they are both wrong. They are both full of MAJOR holes. But its okay. Whatever delusion you prefer is fine with me. So just spin the wheel and pick a religion. Wether that religion is Christanity, Secular Humanism , Budhism , Islam or whatever. Its all about what gets you through the day without feeling the need to hurt me or mine.

BBtB,

Feel free to offer your own theory that explains what we know through biology and paleontology.

Until you do, I'll happily stay 'deluded' with evolution.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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?'

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. :D

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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 .

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Something else just came to my mind, that I would like to add to the discussion. As mentioned before, in order to have some kind of evolutionary process there has to be selection, i.e. individuals need some kind of edge to be able to reproduce. It seems to me that for humans (at least in the developed countries) there is no such pressure anymore - every individual is able to reach puberty and reproduce itself as long as there are no severe physical or psychological handicaps.

So my point is, I think that human evolution has stopped or that we are even regressing - consequently down to a level slightly above of being too dumb or too crippled to actually have sex and raise children. Any opinions?

First of all, Evolution is NOT a theory, it really happens. Want proof? Compare human and chimps, we are over 95% similar bone to bone. Coincidence? I don't think so because plants & trees also have the same nucleic acids and proteins our bodies have. There is nothing theoretical about Natural Selection or Artificial Selection.

But Science is the best thing we have to the truth. At least Science has a "self correction" built into the system whereas if you are using religion as an alternative you do not. Sorry for redundency if this has been mentioned already

it's interesting how christianity and some of it's closely related cousions are getting all the play time for religions argument in this thread, there are many much older, imo much wiser religions out there. i think the buddists are the closest to The Truth.

premordial pool of goo gets together...

Exactly, one or two words from a man two hundred years ago about his opinion, and not facts, is not remotely relevent to the discussion at hand.

I have not stated that there are no holes in the theory of Evolution. There have been fairly large holes that have been addressed as Biology has advanced over the years. They have actually strengthened the theory because the answers could not have been anticipated in Darwin's time. The arguments by creationists are not holes in the theory, because they are either statements of faith or because they disprove an intentional misstatement of the theory in the first point.

I did not "change" the definition of theory. I simply pointed out what the word means in the current context. It is a theory, just like relativity theory, paticle theory, electromagnetic theory, and gravitational theory are theory. None of them are adequate alone to explain the universe as we see it. All of them are usefull in understanding the significance of observed facts.

I would be comfortable stating that evolution does happen and will continue to happen on a basic level. We as humans even evolve based on the things around us in our lifetimes. That doesn't mean evolution is the answer to where we came from. From a physics perspective notice that raw matter left to its own devices become disorganized, not the otherway around. That would make it really unusual for a single cell organism to join up with other non related single cell organisms and turn into this intellectual, self healing, self direct perfect machine called the human body. The only "evolving" we have in our lifespan is the suffering of the human body from all the toxins and pollutants we come in contact with, put into circulation by our own appetites and desires ( not that it is all bad, often even necessary for us to grow or "evolve")God created man and created nature and thus knows the laws of nature and how to work within them to his end. That "2000 year old fairy tale" some one previously referred to is a record of mans journey to find the reason for his existance and through its study one can find piece and understanding through the trials and tribulations of those that came before him. It is not an instruction manual or how to book.
We can can't even deal with what we know and have been shown up to now. Why would we be entitled to any additional knowledge of the things of heaven and earth we don't always do nice things with the knowledge we have. We use only a small percentage of our own brains capacity. Think what we might be capable of if we knew how to unlock the potential.
Search, ponder and pray and the things that are important will come to you. The secret to the whole thing is that there is no secret. We are here on a journey to learn as much as possible before we die. It is that constant search for knowledge and understanding that is important and with Gods help is the key to unlocking the remaining potential Creationism... Absolutly, evolution... yes, but only as a ever growing physical and spiritual entity with lots of potential. Keep0 searching!!

Yup, that's where I'm at.

Correct me if I am wrong to interpret your post. Are you arguing that relativity, electromagnetism and gravity is just "theory"? That those are just a bunch of speculations without concrete scientific experimentations?

I agree with your last statement, but Relativity (special and general) does explain the universe "as we see it." Electromagnetism and electric field theory do explain exactly how electrons and light behave. The universe “as we see it” behaves with the same gravitational forces that we feel here on Earth. Yes there are times when some concrete belief is contradictory with a new observation, but that’s the point, change. My problem is with people using the word “theory” incorrectly and that’s exactly what creationists cling onto for support. Yet “their” own belief system is based purely upon an imaginative theory that has not been proven or has any concrete evidence provided in its behalf.

I guess I have some issues with the idea that there needs to be a "vs." typed between the two. I know other have said this, but they don't seem to compare to me.

Evolution is a theory that can be "proven" or "disproven" through the application of the scientific method. Creationism is a religious belief so "proof" and the scientific method are irrelevant.

If I believe that a man rose from the dead a couple of thousand years ago, or was born from a virgin, I am discounting the scientific method. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong. It just means I'm making a choice about what to believe. Now, if I try to apply science to my religion, or religion to my science... I don't think I get peanut butter cups, if you know what I mean.

Thanks for the great link Macheath 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.
I've always gravitated towards evolution, creation is just too simple and handy, it's the best that people could come up with 2000 years ago. I'm sure 2000 years from now people will chuckle when creation gets mentioned.

You know, the one that keeps me up at night is:

What if evolution were created?

Then, ask yourself the next logical question:

What created that creator?

In all honesty, we cannot, nor will we ever know. So why bother. Believe whatever makes you sleep better at night. Me, I know I am here. I don't know where I am going. Most of all, I don't care. So lets all have a damned good time while we are here!
Crack open the Ceg's, turn up tha stereo and lets all get NEKKID!!!!

I'm a Christian. I think evolution is a lie taught to all of us through our school systems since the 60's. The theory of evolution has not one shred of true evidence of its existence.

Creationism and evolutionism are both beliefs. You have to believe in the truth God has given us to truly believe. I think evolution is false and those who choose to believe in it are believing a lie.

Everyone on here is so very clever, erudite and articulate. But I really have to laugh . . . . . . . . the millions of people who sink to their knees in subordinance every day or every week are NOT philosophers. They are the ignorant and the poor.

LeBell . . . if you accept evolution AND God then how can you explain that God let millions of years pass before permitting a creature to evolve that was capable of 'believing' in him. or perhaps the early Manta Rays (or should that be Mantra Rays?!) had there own little sea-creature church? You cannot be serious.

What is time to God?

Time != energy because if it did, then by simple substitution Time would also equal Mass and that is nonsensical. Matter experiences time but is not the same as time.

As to the rest, I merely asked you what is time to God. But if you wish to project, perhaps I am suggesting that God is exterior what what we know as "time".

Ah shoot.

My appologies, Ducknutz.

I thought I had hit the "Quote" when indeed, I hit the Edit.

You may laugh your ass off at me now.

(goes and hides)

Forgive me for arguing an older point, but I keep coming back to when Oane said, "Evolution obviously. It's science. What's religion got to do with it?" Isn't science what the majority of religions are founded on? The Greeks saw a lightning bolt and were afraid. In learning about their fears, they formed a religion. Who's to say that in another thousand years people won't look back at the foolish Evolutionists and their silly religion?

Personally, I was raised Christian and cannot for the life of me escape the concept of God. This does not, however, mean that I shun evolution or science. The Hebrew word (damn that's the second time I've done this and I don't even speak fluent Hebrew) for day simply means period of time. Thus, God didn't necessarily create the world in six twenty-four hour periods, but rather in six specific segments. They could have taken a few minutes or a thousands of years depending on how long God felt like taking. I believe that if God wanted to use evolution, then he did and if he didn't he didn't. I'm a simple minded creature and that's all I need to know.

Just a side note, forgive me if I didn't quote Oane right. I'm a newbie who works first shift and it is way to late for me to be figuring this stuff out.

No, it is not correct to say that the majority of religions are founded on science.

To use your example, the Greeks saw (observed) a lightning bolt and postulated a person (Zeus) in the heavens who was throwing them.

A scientist observes an event (lighting bolt) and makes no such assumptions, but uses the scientific method to understand what it is and what causes it.

In other words, scientic method is what distinguishes science (observation followed by hypothesis followed by repeatable experimentation) from religion (postulation followed by faith).