Do You Believe In Evolution?

[squeekness]

squeek you're going back and forth and all over the place on this issue.

Well, yeah. There is difference between the word "theory" which has yet to be proven as fact and "fact" which has in fact been proven. I'm seeing evolution being used both ways here. If it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt than it is in fact still a theory and not a fact.

Just to chime in here you seem to be using a more common usage form of theory as opposed to a scientific theory. This is what a scientific theory is

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

This is what Carcharodon has been trying to point out. A scientific theory is more than just a simply group of propositions to explain something. Its something that is testable and can make predictions on things. It is also something that is verified after a lot of testing. So you can't really compare the scientific theory of evolution as being equal to the common usage definition of theory that creationism falls into.

I get it that you can't test Creationsim at all so it loses credibility, but on that note can you test evolution either? It takes so long for a species to change how can that be tested and measured? Empirical observation might cover looking at Cro-Mangnon bones and then us, but what about all those missing links in between?

 

[Danalys]

you can test evolutionary theory by predicting things about fossils that haven't been discovered yet. it's a retrodiction rather than a prediction but it's just as good for testing the theory.

 

[squeekness]

you can test evolutionary theory by predicting things about fossils that haven't been discovered yet.

But until those predictions come true, isn't it still a theory? You're hoping to find something, but you don't know that you ever will. That won't hold up as proof of something in the present.

it's a retrodiction rather than a prediction but it's just as good for testing the theory.

LOL, I have no idea what this means...

 

[Danalys]

past retrodictions have born fruit already.

 

[squeekness]

past retrodictions have born fruit already.

So those are enough to prove evolution as fact? If that is so why is there any controversy at all in this?

 

[Moviefan2k4]

That's the same as saying if God is so omnipotent why doesn't he just prove he exists and save us all the trouble?

Just out of curiosity, what miracle or great presentation would serve to convince you that God is real? The parting of an ocean? The raising of the dead? Water turning to blood, and back again? Such things would certainly impress people's collective imaginations...but then what? It's far more likely that those same people would go right back to living life their own way, rather than God's. They'd probably even try making up reason why what they just saw was false.

In all honesty, God cares far more about saving people than He does about impressing them. The miracles done in Scripture were necessary for various reasons, and I highly doubt any of them were about impressions alone.

The only substitue to replace the theory of evolution is the Bible? Are you serious? That's so ******ed I canot even muster a snarky response.

Really? Well, what would you replace it with? Let's suppose, just for the sake of discussion, that anything and everything related to evolution were thrown out the proverbial window. You'd be left with a lot of questions to answer, like...

1) Who are we as a race?
2) How did we get here?
3) What is the meaning of life?
4) What happens after we die?

These same four questions are the biggest ones that humans have tried to unravel for centuries. Now, if evolution were true, these 4 questions would likely be answered this way...

1) We simply exist, with no aparent rhyme or reason.
2) We came from amoebas and single-celled organisms billions of years ago, changing constaly over time into new species.
3) There is no meaning to life, so you might as well enjoy yourself. If it feels good to you, do it.
4) Your body will deteriorate, and be recycled into the ecosystem, where another creature will eventually take your place.

See how this mode of thinking can get messed up real quick?

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I believe in micro-evolution. But, I don't believe in macro-evolution.

Same here.

 

[Danalys]

So those are enough to prove evolution as fact? If that is so why is there any controversy at all in this?

they are enough to make evolution a well surported scientific theory. that should be taught in science class.

the controversy is outside of scientific circles. it is an attack against evolution just because it goes against some peoples interpretation of the bible. since they take the literal interpretation of the bible on faith, they believe evolution is incorrect apriori, and then they look for problems with it to try to prove it incorrect, and they fail but they manage to make other people believe there's problems with evolution.

 

[squeekness]

These same four questions are the biggest ones that humans have tried to unravel for centuries. Now, if evolution were true, these 4 questions would likely be answered this way...

1) We simply exist, with no aparent rhyme or reason.
2) We came from amoebas and single-celled organisms billions of years ago, changing constaly over time into new species.
3) There is no meaning to life, so you might as well enjoy yourself. If it feels good to you, do it.
4) Your body will deteriorate, and be recycled into the ecosystem, where another creature will eventually take your place.

See how this mode of thinking can get messed up real quick?

Why are these questions true (other than #2) if evolution exists? If God made the Big Bang, creating all things, then certainly question #1 is not true.

If God took his time, tweaking life from that one celled organism and changing it eventually into us, then why would question #3 be true also? Just because God takes his time doesn't mean He doesn't care. He may have had to obey certain laws of this world he created in order to get us to the point where we might comprehend that He actually exists.

As to question #4, what difference does it make if our body deteriorates? It is the Spirit and the Soul that lives on and goes to God. What happens to our Earthly bodies when they are gone are irrelvant to our relationship with God the Creator.

 

[squeekness]

they are enough to make evolution a well surported scientific theory. that should be taught in science class.

the controversy is outside of scientific circles. it is an attack against evoution just because it goes against some peoples interpretation of the bible. since they take the literal interpretation of the bible on faith, they believe evolution is incorrect apriori, and then they look for problems with it to prove it incorrect. and they fail but they manage to make other people believe there's problems with evolution.

This I can agree with, that they can make the flaws with the theory of evolution look worse than they are. I just don't have a problem with them giving an aside in class saying that there are folks who think in other ways. Any kid with half a brain can probably figure out that the theory of evolution has real merit vrs. Creationism alone. I don't see why it has to be an either/or situation in class.

 

[Kent]

I get it that you can't test Creationsim at all so it loses credibility, but on that note can you test evolution either? It takes so long for a species to change how can that be tested and measured?

You don't have to observe a phenomenon directly in order to show it has happened. You look at the proposed phenomenon (in this case common descent), and you ask yourself what kind of things you would see in nature if this was fact. This is not restricted to "We would see large scale change over millions of years" but goes into very strict predictions about patterns of similarities in our genes, comparative anatomy, or how species should be distributed geographically (biogeography).

What Danalys mentioned about fossils is another example of such predictions. Your response to that post implies you aren't really familiar with this either. Predictions have been made about what type of fossils we should find if common descent is fact, but also about where we should find them (geographically as well as in terms of stratigraphy)... ....
What you don't seem to understand is that such fossils have been found. Predictions have born fruit.

Empirical observation might cover looking at Cro-Mangnon bones and then us, but what about all those missing links in between?

Missing links between Cro-Magnon, classified as Homo Sapiens Sapiens... and us... ... classified as Homo Sapiens Sapiens... ?

 

[squeekness]

You don't have to observe a phenomenon directly in order to show it has happened. You look at the proposed phenomenon (in this case common descent), and you ask yourself what kind of things you would see in nature if this was fact. This is not restricted to "We would see large scale change over millions of years" but goes into very strict predictions about patterns of similarities in our genes, comparative anatomy, or how species should be distributed geographically (biogeography).

What Danalys mentioned about fossils is another example of such predictions. Your response to that post implies you aren't really familiar with this either. Predictions have been made about what type of fossils we should find if common descent is fact, but also about where we should find them (geographically as well as in terms of stratigraphy)... ....
What you don't seem to understand is that such fossils have been found. Predictions have born fruit.

Yes, this clarifies things a bit. Thanks. It is true that I am not well versed in all the sciences, probably why I am struggling with the fine print here, yes.

Missing links between Cro-Magnon, classified as Homo Sapiens Sapiens... and us... ... classified as Homo Sapiens Sapiens... ?

So Cro-Magnon is the same as us in all ways? If that is so why don't we just call them homo sapiens? Just askin'..... I was under the impression they were still slightly different from us.

 

[Danalys]

they don't make flaws look worse. they do the eqivalent of showing someone who doesn't know what a car is a car and then saying it's ludicrous that people believe this object can travel faster than a man. without explaining the engine someone could believe them quite easily. the engine in the bits of evolution they misrepresent are sometimes complicated matters that are difficult to explain to people. so the easy to understand misinformation travels further than the truth.

and if we have teachers saying some people don't believe this then to be fair they should do that for everything that is taught. it would be a collosal waste of time.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

If God made the Big Bang, creating all things, then certainly question #1 is not true.

The Big Bang theory dictates that humanity decends from other animals, which evolved over billions of years. God says He created the heavens and the Earth in six days. The original Biblical languages stress that time frame as literally being six consecutive 24-hour days, not euphemisms for "billions of years". So, that's one conflict right there.

He may have had to obey certain laws of this world he created in order to get us to the point where we might comprehend that He actually exists.

Humans were created apart from the animals, as unique individuals made in God's image. We were made to understand and be in fellowship with god from the very beginning, but sin and disobedience corrupted that.

As to question #4, what difference does it make if our body deteriorates? It is the Spirit and the Soul that lives on and goes to God. What happens to our Earthly bodies when they are gone are irrelvant to our relationship with God the Creator.

Evolutionary theory is in direct conflict with the existence of God; as such, that theory doesn't even recognize the presence of a soul or spirit. Evolution is all about the natural, and has nothing to do with the supernatural; in fact, it actively argues against it.

 

[Kent]

So Cro-Magnon is the same as us in all ways? If that is so why don't we just call them homo sapiens? Just askin'.....

You know, I'm not an expert on the subject, but I believe that it's just a term used to refer to the oldest modern European humans, not a technical one. Sort of like, "If humans are all just Homo Sapiens, then why don't we just call ourselves Homo Sapiens?"
It could possibly also be a historical accident. A lot of stuff in science has names that don't really fit into the established patterns due to the fact that "That's what it's always been called."

 

[Danalys]

luckily we have the internet

It is named after the cave of Crô-Magnon in southwest France

 

[squeekness]

The Big Bang theory dictates that humanity decends from other animals, which evolved over billions of years. God says He created the heavens and the Earth in six days. The original Biblical languages stress that time frame as literally being six consecutive 24-hour days, not euphemisms for "billions of years". So, that's one conflict right there.

The Big Bang theory postulates that the universe as we know it came to be in some sort of energy explosion, it has nothing to do with evolution. It's just a guess as to how all things came into existance, not just our planet.

As to whether we evolved from other animals, why do so many people find that so distasteful? We share so much of the same DNA I can't fathom why we think we are so very different.

Humans were created apart from the animals, as unique individuals made in God's image. We were made to understand and be in fellowship with god from the very beginning, but sin and disobedience corrupted that.

I think perhaps God wanted a species of animal on this planet to know of Him and we got picked. To say that we are in some way more special than the animals is vanity and guessing at the mind of God. How could we possibly know exactly what God was thinking?

Evolutionary theory is in direct conflict with the existence of God; as such, that theory doesn't even recognize the presence of a soul or spirit. Evolution is all about the natural, and has nothing to do with the supernatural; in fact, it actively argues against it.

In what way does evolution not recognize the existance of a soul? Anyone who has spent any great time with a dog or a dolphin or an elephant can see they possess a soul the same as us. They can recognize and give love, the very thing God seems to cherish so much in us. Evolution really, when stated as the progression of life through the years, has no impact whatesoever on who got a soul and who didn't.Really, it's about the physical changes, not the spriritual ones.

 

[squeekness]

You know, I'm not an expert on the subject, but I believe that it's just a term used to refer to the oldest modern European humans, not a technical one. Sort of like, "If humans are all just Homo Sapiens, then why don't we just call ourselves Homo Sapiens?"
It could possibly also be a historical accident. A lot of stuff in science has names that don't really fit into the established patterns due to the fact that "That's what it's always been called."

luckily we have the internet

"The more you know!" Thanks.

 

[Captain_BluTac]

*subscribes and gets popcorn*

 

[spideyboy_1111]

The Big Bang theory dictates that humanity decends from other animals, which evolved over billions of years. God says He created the heavens and the Earth in six days. The original Biblical languages stress that time frame as literally being six consecutive 24-hour days, not euphemisms for "billions of years". So, that's one conflict right there.

Humans were created apart from the animals, as unique individuals made in God's image. We were made to understand and be in fellowship with god from the very beginning, but sin and disobedience corrupted that.

Evolutionary theory is in direct conflict with the existence of God; as such, that theory doesn't even recognize the presence of a soul or spirit. Evolution is all about the natural, and has nothing to do with the supernatural; in fact, it actively argues against it.

you realize in biblical days, they did not have watches... and i don't believe they even knew a day was 24hrs... let alone what an hour was... they had a general idea... but nothing exact.

so unless you believe god came down from the heavens and said "yup i made it in 7 earth days your guy's time, not mine" then it means nothing

 

[Moviefan2k4]

you realize in biblical days, they did not have watches...

We don't know for absolute certain what they had, or didn't have. There's plenty of historical artifacts to suggest that the humans of 1,000 years ago were much more advanced than previously believed.

So, unless you believe God came down from the heavens and said, "Yup; I made it in 7 earth days your guy's time, not mine", then it means nothing.

According to whom? There's artifacts and fossils of pottery with dragons and such all over them, plus writings about people actually slaying the creatures. I don't think the idea of dragons existing is nearly as ridiculous as some think. Just because we don't see them around today, doesn't mean they never existed.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

We don't know for absolute certain what they had, or didn't have. There's plenty of historical artifacts to suggest that the humans of 1,000 years ago were much more advanced than previously believed.

According to whom? There's artifacts and fossils of pottery with dragons and such all over them, plus writings about people actually slaying the creatures. I don't think the idea of dragons existing is nearly as ridiculous as some think. Just because we don't see them around today, doesn't mean they never existed.

fairies, elves, leprechauns, nymphs, banshees, and gnomes have just as much evidence as dragons and god...

Your backing up Christianity completely on your soul belief alone. And the only facts you bring are facts within your religion itself. It makes it null in void.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

fairies, elves, leprechauns, nymphs, banshees, and gnomes have just as much evidence as dragons and god...

Your backing up Christianity completely on your soul belief alone. And the only facts you bring are facts within your religion itself. It makes it null in void.

Why, because it's a religion? Well, I got news for ya...so is a belief in evolution. Evolution may be spouted by intellectuals as if it were fact, but there is absolutely zero concrete evidence for it as a fact. Every theory scientists and scholars have come up with has numerous inconsistencies and holes...even more than many say the Bible has.

People believe evolution is true, but that doesn't make it so. The burden of proof for evolution rests on the evolutionist, not the creationist. In order to disprove the accuracy of the Bible, scientists must 100% conclusively prove that the Earth was formed differently from what is written in Genesis.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Why, because it's a religion? Well, I got news for ya...so is a belief in evolution. Evolution may be spouted by intellectuals as if it were fact, but there is absolutely zero concrete evidence for it as a fact. Every theory scientists and scholars have come up with has numerous inconsistencies and holes...even more than many say the Bible has.

People believe evolution is true, but that doesn't make it so. The burden of proof for evolution rests on the evolutionist, not the creationist. In order to disprove the accuracy of the Bible, scientists must 100% conclusively prove that the Earth was formed differently from what is written in Genesis.

science is not a religion. It's based on SEVERAL beliefs, and clues from SEVERAL different people. Your religious "proof" comes only from a book, that your simply just taking other men's word on... putting all your beliefs in there hands because they said god talked to them.

The bible has WAAAYYYY more inconsistencies, and only clues of any of the events happening come only from book itself. Your denying some of the smartest brains in the world simply because you fear change, you fear questioning what you've been taught, and fear that evolution could be fact because for some reason you feel that just because the bible might not be litteral truth, it might all be fake.

If some how they proved evolution was real, they spead it up in an animal and were able to control it, would you still believe it? probably not... because creationist tend to be so ignorant they come up with ridiculous excuses to make there belief still real.

 

[Arcturus]

Why, because it's a religion? Well, I got news for ya...so is a belief in evolution. Evolution may be spouted by intellectuals as if it were fact, but there is absolutely zero concrete evidence for it as a fact. Every theory scientists and scholars have come up with has numerous inconsistencies and holes...even more than many say the Bible has.

People believe evolution is true, but that doesn't make it so. The burden of proof for evolution rests on the evolutionist, not the creationist. In order to disprove the accuracy of the Bible, scientists must 100% conclusively prove that the Earth was formed differently from what is written in Genesis.

Evolution is a religion?

RUBBISH!

Feel free to inform yourself.


By clicking here.