Do You Believe In Evolution?

[squeekness]

squeek according to the definition you brought up they are still incompatable.

2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

a scientific theory would be the well established proposition that it is in contrast to.

Even if that scientific proposition hasn't been proven as fact? (I am not try to argue, I am just not getting why Creationism can't be a theory since it is an idea that has yet to be proved....)

 

[Danalys]

well according to the definition it has to be regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. evolution is a fact that we have a theory to explain, the theory reports on the fact. creation isn't a fact. there is the difference.

 

[squeekness]

well according to the definition it has to be regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. evolution is a fact that we have a theory to explain, the theory reports on the fact. creation isn't a fact. there is the difference.

I see your point and I understand a little better. I get it now. Thanks. Semantics and all that.

 

[Sentinel X]

In a way I do. I think there is a lot of evidence that supports the theory. Also evolution and creationism can co-exist I don't know why people see it as one or the other.

But I've always wondered why there has been such a lack of mid-stages. For instance monkeys evolved to humans, I'd like to see a human/monkey creature...it would help corroborate the theory.

I think Im suppose to take a course in evolution during my third or fourth year of college.

 

[squeekness]

In a way I do. I think there is a lot of evidence that supports the theory. Also evolution and creationism can co-exist I don't know why people see it as one or the other.

But I've always wondered why there has been such a lack of mid-stages. For instance monkeys evolved to humans, I'd like to see a human/monkey creature...it would help corroborate the theory.

I think Im suppose to take a course in evolution during my third or fourth year of college.

That's the big snag, really. You'd expect to find it but it's not there. That's why I'll be sticking with that idea of a little bit of God's hands in things until we find those missing pieces, if they even exist.

 

[Danalys]

well we humans are apes by scientific classification. and we do have fossils of our ancestors. we also have fossils of the other apes ancestors. and the further back in time you get the more similar they get. evolution works like tree branches branching out from one another. the fossil record is incomplete as it is expected to be. so the tree we see in the fossil record is like someone has cut the tree into pieces and then shortend each piece so they don't connect properly anymore, but you can still see that they would have connected and we know why they don't connect.

 

[chaseter]

All I'm saying is that when it's put in that context it's perpetrating common misconceptions about evolution which, frankly, I'm tired of.

Is it your only mission in life to right the wrongs against evolution The chicken could have very well come first...no one knows. Of course a lizard didn't have a chicken... Evolution occurs through beneficial mutations caused from environmental strain.

 

[chaseter]

That so-called "evidence" has yet to conclusively prove that the cosmos originated from an explosion of nothing. You'd think after 150 years, folks would throw out the evolution theory, and replace it.

And even then, it's still an unprovable scientific idea. If humanity could 100% prove evolution, beyond a shadow of a doubt, it wouldn't be called a theory anymore...it'd be a fact. But that hasn't happened, and there's a reason for it: it's false.

This always amuses and puzzles me at the same time. How are humans supposed to prove the existence of a spiritual being, relying soleley on science as a method? You cannot approach a spiritual subject without a matching approach; that'd be like trying to explain colors to a blind person...it just doesn't work, because there's no proper frame of reference.

Your evidence against evolution is just as faulty as your evidence for the existance of a God.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Actually, I agree with this. No argument here. Then again, you're kind of stating the obvious.

Maybe, but the point I was trying to make was that so many people are trying to use science as the sole method of proving God's existence. That's just futile, because God is a spirit...and as such, we should appraoch any debate of His existence from a spiritual point of view, in addition to science. Otherwise, the debate remains one-sided.

Conversely, the same can be said of trying to explain the material world. How would you prove the existence of a tree, for example, without including any of your senses? You couldn't just say, "I believe in trees", and have that be the end of it...because trees are a natural phenomena, and must be regarded as such. It's okay to believe that trees exist, but to prove it requires science...just as proving God requires the spirit.

 

[The Senator]

Maybe, but the point I was trying to make was that so many people are trying to use science as the sole method of proving god's existence. That's just futile, because God is a spirit...and as such, we should appraoch any debate of His existence from a spiritual point of view, in addition to science. Otherwise, the debate remains one-sided.

Conversely, the same can be said of trying to explain the material world. How would you prove the existence of a tree, for example, without including any of your senses? You couldn't just say, "I believe in trees", and have that be the end of it...because trees are a natural phenomena, and must be regarded as such. It's okay to believe that trees exist, but to prove it requires science...just as proving God requires the spirit.

By your logic, shouldn't proving the existence of God require science? Funny how NO scientific evidence exists which claims God exists definitively...

 

[chaseter]

Maybe, but the point I was trying to make was that so many people are trying to use science as the sole method of proving God's existence. That's just futile, because God is a spirit...and as such, we should appraoch any debate of His existence from a spiritual point of view, in addition to science. Otherwise, the debate remains one-sided.

And using solely belief to disprove the existance of evolution is futile Because evolution is fact. We should approach this evolutional debate from a scientific standpoint, in addition to religion.

I believe in both...not that hard

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Proving the existence of God must be done from a spiritual point of view, first and foremost, because He is a spirit. Using science to find evidence for His ways is good too, but it can often be miscontrued or ill-represented.

 

[Sentinel X]

^ To be honest Moviefan2k4's concept is not that hard to understand. Science is based on empirical data, a spirit isn't corporeal....hence a DEFINITE proof of the existence of God via scientific evidence is somewhat moot.

And how is Evolution fact? From my understanding its still a theory hence the name THEORY of evolution
I happen to beleive in both (based on what I have learned about evolution, however I admit that I do need to learn some more about it before I can be definitely sure on my stance about it.

 

[chaseter]

Proving the existence of God must be done from a spiritual point of view, first and foremost, because He is a spirit. Using science to find evidence for His ways is good too, but it can often be miscontrued or ill-represented.

And using faith/religion to disprove the existance of evolution is moot. Evolution exists, and God exists. Nothing in the Bible disproves evolution. It is just fundi creationists who make their own interpretations.

 

[Danalys]

moviefan is right but there's no way to besure of anything spiritual. there's not even any reason or feeling you could have to believe one spiritual interpretation over another.

 

[chaseter]

And how is Evolution fact? From my understanding its still a theory hence the name THEORY of evolution
I happen to beleive in both (based on what I have learned about evolution, however I admit that I do need to learn some more about it before I can be definitely sure on my stance about it.

A fact is something that has been proven to happen. Just look outside, what flora and fauna you see today was not the exact same thousands, millions, or billions of years ago, fossil records prove that. You will never hear science call much of anything they bring forth other than a theory. Why? Because no one can actually test evolution, gravity may not be constant everywhere, etc etc. Science doesn't claim to know all the answers and those that do are just as dull headed as theists who refute everthing science offers.

 

[chaseter]

moviefan is right but there's no way to besure of anything spiritual. there's not even any reason or feeling you could have to believe one spiritual interpretation over another.

Which is the same argument that happens in the God thread every day. No one can disprove the existance of God and no one can prove his existance either so fighting on both sides over such issue is moot. Lets get back on topic...the topic being evolution.

 

[The Senator]

Proving the existence of God must be done from a spiritual point of view, first and foremost, because He is a spirit. Using science to find evidence for His ways is good too, but it can often be miscontrued or ill-represented.

So that means you can never prove the existence of God, considering whether or not God exists is subjective to one's point of view. Gotcha.

 

[chaseter]

Which is the same argument that happens in the God thread every day. No one can disprove the existance of God and no one can prove his existance either so fighting on both sides over such issue is moot. Lets get back on topic...the topic being evolution.

So that means you can never prove the existence of God, considering whether or not God exists is subjective to one's point of view. Gotcha.

I heart you

 

[Danalys]

And how is Evolution fact? From my understanding its still a theory hence the name THEORY of evolution
I happen to beleive in both (based on what I have learned about evolution, however I admit that I do need to learn some more about it before I can be definitely sure on my stance about it.

evolution and the theory of evolution are two seperate things. like an atom and atomic theory are two seperate things. so unless you think you are made out of atomic theories i don't see the problem.

 

[Sentinel X]

A fact is something that has been proven to happen. Just look outside, what flora and fauna you see today was not the exact same thousands, millions, or billions of years ago, fossil records prove that. You will never hear science call much of anything they bring forth other than a theory. Why? Because no one can actually test evolution, gravity may not be constant everywhere, etc etc. Science doesn't claim to know all the answers and those that do are just as dull headed as theists who refute everthing science offers.

Well from my understanding I thought the theory of evolution tried to explain how things have gotten to the way they are. The actual process of evolution itself is pretty much indisputable...things do change over time and that is a FACT. However not everything said about the theory of evolution is fact, there is a lot of evidence that points to it but scientist have been wrong before.


But in all seriousness evolution can coexist with creationism, at least from what I've read in the Bible. I've read Genisis about 4 times and there was nothing in that book that said they couldn't coexist

evolution and the theory of evolution are two seperate things. like an atom and atomic theory are two seperate things. so unless you think you are made out of atomic theories i don't see the problem.

Really? I always thought they were the same. I mean, I know what you mean and what you're trying to say but I never heard scientist say "we are going to be discussing the theory of evolution then we will be discussing evolution." I always thought when somebody said the theory of evolution, you are talking about everything 'evolution' including postulations

 

[The Chairman]

I think there is too much evidence NOT to believe in evolution, but I do think that that same evolution happened under God's guidence and according to his laws when he made the place. I don't see why a person's belief has to be either Creationism or Evolution when the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

Word.

 

[Abstract]

The big problem with this statement is that both gravity and evolution CAN be denied. There are a limited number of scientific tests that we can use to "prove" Gravity. There are few enough to where gravity can be denied as exampled here and here.

Now you might think that these two guys are loony-tunes. And you'd be right, they are, however it still shows that there are in fact many ways to deny gravity.

Ahh, well what I meant was that evolution is like gravity in that we (the scientific community at least) know it exists. How about, evolution is like magnetism?

 

[Danalys]

Really? I always thought they were the same. I mean, I know what you mean and what you're trying to say but I never heard scientist say "we are going to be discussing the theory of evolution then we will be discussing evolution." I always thought when somebody said the theory of evolution, you are talking about everything 'evolution' including postulations

no they just teach evolution the history, evidence and theory.
again with my prior example your quote would change into "we are going to be discussing atomic theory then we will be discussing atoms."

doesn't make sense. it's superfluous. you can't discuss the theory without discussing the subject of the theory.

 

[Sentinel X]

no they just teach evolution the history, evidence and theory.
again with my prior example your quote would change into "we are going to be discussing atomic theory then we will be discussing atoms."

doesn't make sense. it's superfluous. you can't discuss the theory without discussing the subject of the theory.

Thats not really what I realy meant. What I was trying to say is I thought once someone said Theory of Evolution they are referring to evolution itself. I have never heard anyone refer to Evolution and the Theory of evolution as seperate terms. Once I hear some talk about The theory of evolution its basically understood that they are talking about evolution and vice versa...