Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[SV Fan]

The "debate" is not a debate at all: one either accepts the evidence or rejects it. It is not a theory anymore, as it has been validated over and over again.

I disagree, evolution is still a theory. We have to small a sample size to prove it as fact.

 

[DBryan]

As soon as you tell me where the missing link is?

Scientists have found, and continue to find, many many many links.

There is no 'the missing link'. That is a misconception. We've talked about it already.

Most of the discrepencies in this thread are also not discrepencies. They are findings that were overdramatized by the media. It amazes me how people still think we're looking for the "missing link". Missing link to what? We have tons of links. Every fossil is a link, every fossil dated back a significant portion of time shows beautiful transitional features. The jaw for example. Following a path starting at Tiktaalik you can trace perfectly the transition of bones in the jaw from amphibious fish to the inner ear bones of land mammals. You can see the movement, how the bones gradually repositioned and eventually were repurposed. Minor disputes over what came before what, or what the ultimate role of junk DNA is doesn't topple the whole theory, or even shoot holes in it. Not even close.

Look -

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.) (larger 76K JPG version)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

ALL of those fossils are examples of links. Intermediate and transitional forms.

Check out this video.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/multimedia/videos/evidence-human-origins

 

[DBryan]

I disagree, evolution is still a theory. We have to small a sample size to prove it as fact.

We discussed the meaning of the word theory earlier in a thread. There are no theories in science that get elevated past the point of theory.

 

[chaseter]

Hmarrs is Dr. Banjo.

 

[Hotwire]

What I can never understand about these debates is why boh sides seem to belive that the concepts of evolution and creation exclude each other. Why would it be so hard to believe that some higher power, call it God or whatever you want, created evolution. He starts the ball rolling and let's it evolve from there. It seems a lot more logical to me.

I mean, why create something that cannot adapt to its environment and evolve as things change? To simply believe that every living thing on Earth, as it is now, has been around since the dawn of time is ridiculous.

On top of that, the idea that Noah's flood saved all of the current species, and dropped them off in the middle east, how in the HELL did animals that live in places like North America and Australia get there? Sorry, I digress. That's a whole different argument.

 

[Hmarrs]

You brought the Bible into this with your evidence of creationism.

I present logical questions and you call it rambling. No where in the Bible does it refute evolution yet you say evolution does not exist because of evidence in the Bible.

I actually didn't bring the Bible into it.I was attacked from all sides with Biblical question just because I said I believe in the Bible.
At that point everyone expected me to answer things that only God knows.The funny thing was I never said it didn't exist what I was trying to say is I believe that they may work hand in hand.
Somthing has to be created from somthing before it can evolve into somthing else.
Oh my good ness what was that for go back and read over again.

You're citing the Bible as evidence for creationism.

I'm not religious I have a relationship.

That question doesn't even make sense

Anyway, come visit the Atheist thread, if you want to discuss specifics about god and the origin of the universe.

It makes total sense.If I ask you who created the universe you will so no one.It came about on it's own.My next question is who is it's own?
Also by the way I wouldn't go to a site that doesn't exist.
An atheist believes there is no God.He stands for somthing that he doesn't believe in.Why would an Atheist try to disprove somthing he doesn't believe in.That would be rather redundant don't you think?
If it doesn't exist I don't need to prove to anyone to tell me it doesn't exist.
Just like I don't need a group to tell me there are no such things as pink Elepants unless of course they were afraid they could be a possibility of the said existance.In other words deep down the Athiest does believe.
The Athiest reminds me of the guy who has not gotten over a break up.He tells everyone he is over it.Time and time again to try to convince himself.He he is really not over it until you no longer hear him mention her.
In other words and in the words of Shakesphere:
to the Athiest me doest think that doest protest too much."

 

[SuperFerret]

I'm not religious I have a relationship.

You have a religion, therefore you are religious. Whether or not you have a relationship with God is besides the point.

 

[DBryan]

Those are points I'd be happy to answer in the atheism thread.

 

[Hmarrs]

Hmarrs is Dr. Banjo.

Okay patient you never answered my question:
Does God exist?If not how do you know?

 

[chaseter]

Okay patient you never answered my question:
Does God exist?If not how do you know?

I believe he does but I have no proof he does so I don't parade it as fact.

 

[Kurosawa]

I accept it. And for those who are religious, science can easily be accepted without losing faith.

 

[Hmarrs]

You have a religion, therefore you are religious. Whether or not you have a relationship with God is besides the point.

How about you tell me what my relgion is?since you seem to know.
See That's where your wrong buddy boy:
I don't follow a set of man made guidelines.
I follow a person named Jesus.
Its who I am not what I do.
You can live in a marriage religiously
or have a relationship with your wife.
Religion kills Relationship and has given many of us a bad name.

 

[SV Fan]

There's actually a lot of archeological evidence pointing to the Bible's accuracy in a historical sense (from small details to larger events). You can disbelieve the theological stuff all you want (I'm not trying to say your beliefs are wrong, anymore than I'd want you to say the same about mine), but don't let your personal beliefs fool you into believing the entire book is "fiction". I'm the type of person who thinks everyone should read the bible at least once, if not for religious reasons, but for the simple fact that it has some amazing stories in it - regardless of your personal beliefs - and the archeological record points to the truth of those stories quite often.

Just because you might be able to prove 1 thing to be true doesn't mean everything is true though. There is many fiction books today that you can point to facts that are true now, doesn't make it all fact. Personally I think I stopped believing in the religious stuff when I saw a god that was supposed to be all loving shove a guy down the throat of a whale for 3 days. lol

Let's not forget the great story of Ezekiel, that God knew how much Zek loved him that he killed his wife and children to prove a point how much Zek loves him.

 

[DBryan]

Hmarrs, do you still think evolution lacks the missing link?

 

[SuperFerret]

I accept it. And for those who are religious, science can easily be accepted without losing faith.

Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. - Pope John Paul II

All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom. - Albert Einstein

And my favorite:

My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims. - Tenzin Gyatso, The 14th Dalai Lama

That's where your wrong buddy boy:
I don't follow a set of man made guidelines.
I follow a person named Jesus.
You live in a marriage religiously
or have a relationship with your wife.
Religion kills Relationship and has given many of us a bad name.

Now you're just splitting hairs.

 

[Hmarrs]

I believe he does but I have no proof he does so I don't parade it as fact.

Belief is all you need brother.
I will tell you this as well as my athiest friend.I have nothing against any athiest what they say has some truth.There is no proof therefore I believe God does not exist.

HE IS EXISTENCE!​

IF GOD EXISTED THEN HE WOULD NEED TO DEPEND ON EXISTENCE TO BE GOD AND GOD DEPENDS ON NOTHING TO BE GOD.
HE CREATED EXISTENCE WE LIVE IN IT.HE IS OUTSIDE OF IT THAT'S WHY THERE IS NO PROOF OF HIM HERE.HE ONCE CREATED A BODY TO COME INTO OUR EXISTENCE AND HIS NAME WAS JESUS,JESHUA,YAWEH.
SO I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THE ATHIEST WHO SAY GODS DOES NOT EXIST THERE ARE RIGHT.GOD DOES NOT EXIST HE CREATED IT.SO BASICALLY GOD DOES NOT NEED TO EXIST TO BE GOD THAT'S WHY HE IS GOD!

GOD DOES NOT EXIST EXISTANCE IS GOD!!!!​

I'm Out I love you all God Bless.

 

[SuperFerret]

Slightly off topic: I've always liked the idea that "God" (as in the creator) is actually just what we call "the universe". It's appealing in its simplicity.

 

[SV Fan]

Slightly off topic: I've always liked the idea that "God" (as in the creator) is actually just what we call "the universe". It's appealing in its simplicity.

My take on religion is I don't believe there is a higher power but say if I am wrong(which is a possibility) the "god" that exists hasn't been represented by any particular religion that been thrown our way in the past 10000 years

 

[childeroland]

That's what I think too.

 

[Mandalore464]

Okay patient you never answered my question:
Does God exist? If not how do you know?

And how would anyone know whether God exists? How do you know he does? I guess you just "feel" him around or something, well maybe this guy just doesn't, and that's the end of it.

The problem is believers think it's the non-believers who have to prove something they obviously can't while, in a "normal" debate, each side should have to prove the validity of their claims. And in this case, no one can.

Based on what's already been scientifically proven about the creation and evolution of species, I feel safe saying that every major religion on Earth is wrong when it comes to the way they portray the creation of the world.

That doesn't make the possibility of a God any less real.

All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom. - Albert Einstein

Lovely.

 

[SuperFerret]

I don't assume to know, but I like to think about the possibilities.

 

[Dr.]

I think Science has proven that no Theory is secure.

Spontaneous Generation

...

Alchemy

...

Newtons Laws of Motion

...

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.

You could make the case that many of those examples don’t meet the definition of a proper scientific theory – that is, a true systematic framework that unites a body of evidence. Alchemy, for instance, wasn’t based on the observable facts of chemistry.

That said… yes, scientific theories represent our best, current understanding. Might better theories be discovered in the future? Sure. But in practice, we don’t sit around (in impotence) waiting for perfect understanding. We put the current science to use (and teach it).

Newton’s theory of gravity is a good example of this. It works remarkably well. Intro physics students still learn his equations. Indeed, you can send a rocket to a precision orbit around a planet using them. So when Einstein’s theory of gravity supplanted Newton’s, it had to meet a very high standard: it had to explain everything that the old theory did – plus more. Likewise… if some new theory overthrows Darwin, it will have to be Darwin+ (in a way, that’s already happened with Neo-Darwinism).

If you want to say that scientific theories are tentative, fair enough. But use the same yardstick for every one of them (Germ Theory, Quantum Theory, etc.). It’s conspicuously fishy to single out Evolution Theory to a different/higher standard and use that to justify “reasonable doubt” or pleas for “equal time.”

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

That's where your wrong buddy boy:
I don't follow a set of man made guidelines.
I follow a person named Jesus.
You live in a marriage religiously
or have a relationship with your wife.
Religion kills Relationship and has given many of us a bad name.

So you are a fidist then. You buy into a myth and use that myth as the benchmark for how you interpret reality.

I think what saddens me is honestly, you're take on reality is reductionist, petty and self-centered. I've honestly had to let go of my ego because science teaches you that your body, and your mind, isn't yours and it isn't special. This is the fundamental principle of science: the human mind and human sense are faulty. In fact they are very fault. We are overly emotional, easily swayed by anecdotal evidence, panicky, quick to succumb to flight or fight responses and we're aggressive in our pursuit of resources. All of those traits, which correspond with predictions made by anthropologists, psychologists and genecists, show how much our mind is a powder keg for things like fidism.

You're an animal. The atoms that construct your molecules which formed your genes that are expressed by your DNA are traceable to the crucibles of high mass stars. The Universe used to be light elements, and this phenomenon exists even to this day. Those light particles go through a process of fusion. When those stars die and go nova, denser elements form into gas clouds. You can see the stages of solar system development throughout the galaxy. Pictures exist. These Novas formed the atoms which construct us. So when I look at a tree I don't see something some mythical manchild simply said is "tree", I see something that is connected to everything. That will exist perpetually, that has existed perpetually, and once floated unused in space as an atom in the spot that became our solar system. My atoms are no different.

I think I know what your problem is, and you do have a problem. You view the world through just one perspective: yours. Those who wrote the Bible wrote it through just one perspective: theirs. Think about Mount Sinai. The description is Exodus:

And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightenings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.

The LORD reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of isles be glad thereof. 2 Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne. 3A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. 4 His lightnings enlightened the world: the earth saw, and trembled. 5 The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth
​

Clouds with thunder and lightning? A voice like a trumpet? Hills melting like wax? Spot on description of a Volcano if you ask me. Yet, it's not that simple is it, because you have to consider their perspective is not yours. They had no internet, and the only way they found out about things is to see them for the first time. So here you have a spot on description of a Volcano, and in their shoes I may indeed come to the conclusion that I was watching the act of someone very powerful.

The ultimate goal of science is to get out of your own head. To actually look at evidence that can be repeated and reproduced by anyone. That is the beauty of science. The other beauty of science is that unlike the Bible, that reports on things that inspired immediate emotional responses, the scientists look for patterns.

The Universe is composed of beautiful and complex patterns and evolution is one such pattern. Stars "evolve", systems "evolve" and even consciousness "evolves". Our consciousness follows the same basic law as any animal. Watch and cat, watch a dog and you'll see how they playfully interact with their environment just like humans. They follow routines and create habits, but are limited in their ability to communicate or use their hands making them far less able to make the use of their intelligence that we have.

Stop thinking we're special. Your brain follows the same system of electrical outputs and inputs as any high functioning mammal. You can look at genetics and see how the sonic hedgehog gene or the HOX genes have been present in all the animals who are bilaterally symmetrical. This is important stuff, and you are missing out.

For me, the world is only enhanced by the presense of the Haydron collider, the decoding of the human genome, the WMAP image, and your fidism seeks to ****** that progress. If you don't understand something that is fine, but don't condescend some story I knew had to be wrong when I was five and then act put upon when those who have studied the evidence disagree with you. What you believe is silly, and your constant bickering with people and persistent defensiveness is absolute evidence that you at least have consider that is a possibility.​

 

[Mindreaper21]

Human evolution makes no sense. I figure if it were true, there would be some sort of species that looks half human and half ape or maybe even apes that actually speak.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Some of the answers in here are truly mind-blogging.

The Bible was a book written and edited (heavily, if I may add) by mere mortal men. The stories regarding Adam & Eve, Noah's Ark, Job, David & Goliath and so on were just that -- stories.

I stopped taking the Bible seriously (morally and historically) when my baby teeth started to fall out. I think it was the conquest of Canaan, in which God ordered the Hebrews to completely exterminate the Canaanite people (from the elderly to newborns and fetuses) that finally made me see the 'light'. This is described throughout the book of Joshua as occurring in Jericho and other Canaanite cities.

Deuteronomy 20:17

It's not that I loath religion or the idea of 'God', it's just that I believe they are simply the spiritual manifestation of man's inability to explain that of what he or she does not understand.