Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[Raiden]

Of course there is evolution in this world, and we see them everyday. If there's no evolution, then breeders won't be able to breed racing horses or many varieties of dogs, scientists won't be able to grow plants and vegetables to their specifications, and researchers won't be able to figure out the right kind antibiotics to combat the latest mutation of the virus. It's not just about dinosaurs, people.

 

[Soapy]

 

[chaseter]

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

 

[Hmarrs]

FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT THINK I MADE IT UP:
THE FACT THAT I AM SKEPTICAL MAKES ME MORE SCIENTIFIC:

Let us start with a dictionary definition of skepticism. Webster's Dictionary defines skepticism as: "A critical attitude towards any theory, statement, experiment, or phenomenon, doubting the certainty of all things until adequate proof has been produced; the scientific spirit." The Greek root of skepticism is identified as "skepticos", which means "thoughtful, inquiring."


"A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision isnot a scientific theory"

Things that are abosolute are not up for revision.

Ecyclopedia of Brittanica

scientific theory, systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.In attempting to explain things and events.

Mirriam Webster:
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

Again:

Websters:

"A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory"

 

[Soapy]

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Believe it or not, I've actually heard more than a couple religious people make that argument.

 

[SuperFerret]

FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT THINK I MADE IT UP:
THE FACT THAT I AM SKEPTICAL MAKES ME MORE SCIENTIFIC:

Let us start with a dictionary definition of skepticism. Webster's Dictionary defines skepticism as: "A critical attitude towards any theory, statement, experiment, or phenomenon, doubting the certainty of all things until adequate proof has been produced; the scientific spirit." The Greek root of skepticism is identified as "skepticos", which means "thoughtful, inquiring."


"A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory"

Ecyclopedia of Brittanica

scientific theory, systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.In attempting to explain things and events.

Mirriam Webster:
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

Again:

Websters:

"A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory"

The theory of evolution is constantly being revised.

 

[DBryan]

I don't think anyone here claimed that a theory is absolute, Hmarrs.

 

[Franklin Richards]

You always blow things way out of proportion.

Creationists do not rule the world.

Just Tennessee.

 

[SuperFerret]

Eh, the idea that life has evolved is pretty absolute. It's more the how that's being revised.

 

[jaymes_e06]

I blame right wing republicans. I can not think of one reason why one would not execept it as a theory because it's just that a theory. I guess religions can make the word Evolution a dirty word but I don't know why they can't work in tandum. But that's just me.

 

[childeroland]

Adequate proof of evolution has been produced, which is why it enjoys such broad consensus.

Evolution IS falsifiable because it can make predictions that would falsify it if they were contradicted by evidence. Evidence HAS been proposed that could falsify evolution if it were found--for example, the fossil record showing no change over time (which we know it does), confirmation that mutations are kept from accumulating (again, we know they do accumulate) or observations showing organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously (which have never been made or verified). In fact, some of Darwin's own assertions of fact have been falsified--as I believe he and others did to Lamark's earlier evolutionary ideas--as evolutionary science has continued to confirm his central ideas.

 

[SuperFerret]

It's partly ego. A lot of people still can't accept that humans are just another species in the animal kingdom because it would make them somehow less important.

 

[Dr.]

Websters:

"A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory"

Quite so! And the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System is tentative too – inasmuch as new evidence could overthrow it. (That’s actually one of the pillars of science: falsifiability. If something can’t be falsified, it’s not science.) But the Heliocentric Theory is pretty secure… as is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

 

[Hmarrs]

The theory of evolution is constantly being revised.

That's why it's a Theory

Believe it or not, I've actually heard more than a couple religious people make that argument.

I'm not religious.I have a relationship.There are some here who believe in Evolution so dogmatically who are more religious then I ever hope to be.

I don't think anyone here claimed that a theory is absolute, Hmarrs.

Ahhhh c'mon man even you don't believ that go back and read this thread over.

I blame right wing republicans. I can not think of one reason why one would not execept it as a theory because it's just that a theory. I guess religions can make the word Evolution a dirty word but I don't know why they can't work in tandum. But that's just me.

I agree with you.This the point I was trying to make in the beggining before I got attacked by your right wing Evolutionist.

Quite so! And the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System is tentative too &#8211; inasmuch as new evidence could overthrow it. (That&#8217;s actually one of the pillars of science: falsifiability. If something can&#8217;t be falsified, it&#8217;s not science.) But the Heliocentric Theory is pretty secure&#8230; as is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

I think Science has proven that no Theory is secure.

Spontaneous Generation

Phlogiston

Maternal Impression

Vitalism

The Four Humors

Geocentricity

California Island

Alchemy

World Ice Theory

Rain Follows the Plow

The Age of the Earth

Laplacian Evolution

Newtons Laws of Motion

Newton's corpuscular theory of light

Aristotle's dynamic motion

The classical elemental theory

Phlogiston theory

Remember when the Atom was THE smallest particle? It was a FACT!!

All Scientific theories to name a few debunked by thier fellow Scientific peers.

 

[childeroland]

Evolution has far more evidence going for it than these other theories had, theories which scientists threw away eventually when new evidence presented itself--something dogma does not do. It is that adherence to revision based on investigation, and the fact that evolution has held up, that makes the theory anything but right wing dogma.

 

[WildcatNC]

I believe that evolution happens and that it is a sound working theory moving forward. It will of course need to be revised as new information becomes available.

What many get confused about is the origin, not the process. Most right wingers I know even admit that things evolve over time. Its the "origin" thats put forward that they fight against.

Its really not creation vs evolution. Evolution has been shown and demonstrated as a process. Its the origin speculation that is the main source of disagreement.

At least in most of the people I talk to and am around.

 

[Franklin Richards]

You're missing the point, Hmarrs. Science has a built in skepticism. No one has said Science is never wrong, but while we're talking about it... let's talk about how the Church has stifled independent thought and murdered people who have tried to advance our knowledge.

Science is our best answer to questions.
Faith on the other hand... our best hopes.


What is the first lesson the Bible teaches? Don't eat of the Tree of Knowledge or I'll punish you and all your heirs.

Why is that?

 

[chaseter]

That's why it's a Theory


I'm not religious.I have a relationship.There are some here who believe in Evolution so dogmatically who are more religious then I ever hope to be.


Ahhhh c'mon man even you don't believ that go back and read this thread over.

I agree with you.This the point I was trying to make in the beggining before I got attacked by your right wing Evolutionist.

I think Science has proven that no Theory is secure.

Spontaneous Generation

Phlogiston

Maternal Impression

Vitalism

The Four Humors

Geocentricity

California Island

Alchemy

World Ice Theory

Rain Follows the Plow

The Age of the Earth

Laplacian Evolution

Newtons Laws of Motion

Newton's corpuscular theory of light

Aristotle's dynamic motion

The classical elemental theory

Phlogiston theory

Remember when the Atom was THE smallest particle? It was a FACT!!

All Scientific theories debunked by the fellow Scientific peers.

You didn't answer my question. So...I will pose more:

Why do we have an appendix if we don't need it?

Did cows, horses, and bunny rabbits used to live in fear of getting eaten by a T-Rex?

Why are kids being born without wisdom teeth and why did I have to get mine removed?

How is the Earth only 6,000 years old and why aren't there any dinosaurs running around like lizards and snakes if all animals were created on the same day?

How do you know one day in our time isn't 1 billion years in God's time?

 

[chaseter]

Also...in the Bible it says man was shaped from the Earth. Could that not mean we evolved from single cell organisms that first inhabited this planet?

No...to a fundi that means God found clay and made a man sculpture and zapped him to life.

 

[Franklin Richards]

I thought that was Wonder Woman's origin.

 

[SV Fan]

I do agree with most of it but I would argue that there probably is an equal chance for things to devolve as there is to evolve. I am personally under the belief that intelligent life has been on this planet before whether its been 100k, 1 Million or 1 Billion years ago

Alchemy

All Scientific theories to name a few debunked by thier fellow Scientific peers.

This one actually has been proven true. A scientist actually turned a small particle of some material into gold recently. It cost millions of dollars to do the transformation but he did prove it was possible. All that being said the method that guy used to do this couldn't have been done in the middle ages.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Spontaneous Generation

Phlogiston

Maternal Impression

Vitalism

The Four Humors

Geocentricity

California Island

Alchemy

World Ice Theory

Rain Follows the Plow

The Age of the Earth

Laplacian Evolution

Newtons Laws of Motion

Newton's corpuscular theory of light

Aristotle's dynamic motion

The classical elemental theory

Phlogiston theory


None of these were ever vetted theories as Evolution was. What the hell would you think Newton and Aristotle knew anyways, both were creationists and were not "scientists" in the sense that they weren't following the scientific method when deducing those "theories". Evolution will not be overturned ever. These above were philosophical ideas peddled long before the advent of technology and modern science. Ironically many of them were theories invented by the Church to support religion.

 

[DBryan]

Scientists being able to correct previous knowledge with new information is a strength, Hmarrs.

It's one of the reasons why the scientific method is the best way of discerning what is the the truth.

 

[Hmarrs]

You didn't answer my question. So...I will pose more:

Why do we have an appendix if we don't need it?

Did cows, horses, and bunny rabbits used to live in fear of getting eaten by a T-Rex?

Why are kids being born without wisdom teeth and why did I have to get mine removed?

How is the Earth only 6,000 years old and why aren't there any dinosaurs running around like lizards and snakes if all animals were created on the same day?

How do you know one day in our time isn't 1 billion years in God's time?

Dude your freakin rambling.
Your questions are ridiculous.
Why is Paris Hilton famous?
I never said a day IN OUR TIME WASN'T A BILLION FOR GOD.
AS A MATTER OF FACT SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP THE BIBLE SAYS ONE DAY FOR GOD IS A THOUSAND YEARS FOR US.
SO IN REALITY CREATION WOULD HAVE TAKEN SEVEN THOUSAND YEARS.
So your pretty close.

 

[Hmarrs]

Scientists being able to correct previous knowledge with new information is a strength, Hmarrs.

It's one of the reasons why the scientific method is the best way of discerning what is the the truth.

Until it's disproved again.