Evolution (and some Creationism, too)
Posts:
682
Visited by
359 users
Original post
Posted by Götter, 08.04.2007 - 02:05
Okay, so what do we have? Evolution is at present (and, hopefully, in the future) THE way of seeing our world. It's the only one that has some scientific credibility tagged to it. These days, religions are rightfully required to adjust themselves to science, not the opposite; world-views that blatantly deny evolution, like intelligent design, are running out on their lease of life. I am not a qualified statistician or a seer, I cannot tell whether the entirety of religion is in its death throes, but creationism does seem to hint at something like that. Christianity had been slowly adapting itself to science when that heap of nonsense popped up in the twentieth century.
Now I am not trying to bash anyone just because they believe God created Heaven and Earth, but please look at the facts - the Theory of Evolution, despite its loose ends and controversies, is a working and proven theory. You should get used to it, or it's your loss. I know a lot of scientists are both religious and still they manage to accept evolution. In fact, despite what creationists would have us believe, there is no controversy in the scientific community regarding the evolution vs creation dispute. None at all - the scientists are unanimously in support of what Darwin started. What is happening in America is a bunch of overly religious people have found themselves in a situation where they can legally present their views as hard science and teach it in schools as such.
I guess me, being an European, shouldn't be overly concerned about all that - it'll never happen here. Yet if American children start getting such education, the entire world will be affected and our near future could get fucked up significantly. So I appeal to you all, especially Americans: fight against creationism (cretinism?) and for evolution. It's the only way.
Yes, I didn't actually post any scientific evidence for evolution, nor did I provide any links to sites containing that. What I also didn't do is refer to any specific creationist conspiracies and lies. The Internet is full of both of these things, look it up yourself. Start with Wikipedia, for instance. I do give a link to my current favorite song, "Creation Science 101" by Roy Zimmerman. Enjoy this, and common sense!
 Posts: 8703 |
Posts: 8703 Written by Dane Train on 06.12.2007 at 20:05 and where is your "scientific fact" that man was created by god? (or what do you believe for) i can accept that there was "something" (someone?) who came those 4 billion years ago and put together the "primal substance"...practically i even believe in this more than it all happened only "by chance"...but since then the life is evolving by self
---- My rest seems now calm and deep Finally I got my dead man sleep 
Loading...
|
 Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777 Written by Ellrohir on 07.12.2007 at 00:30 Just a comment. Man didn't evolve from apes. However it is believed that Man and Apes evolved from a common ancestor. But hey, evolution is just a theory right? But so is gravity, cells, atoms...
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
 Posts: 12300 |
Posts: 12300 Written by Clintagräm on 07.12.2007 at 01:45 Whoa, wait, is this sarcasm or not? If not, then I'm practically at a loss for words. Man didn't evolve from apes? From who, then? The fairy fucking godmother? And I dare you jump off a high rise and tell me afterwards that your remains splattered over the street are a theory too, just like gravity. 
Loading...
|
 Posts: 8902 |
Posts: 8902 Written by Ellrohir on 07.12.2007 at 00:30 Since when did I ever say anything about God in this thread? No where. I am not even talking about God and science. So please don't assume anything about what I believe.
---- (space for rent)
Loading...
|
| Posts: 8902 |
Posts: 8902 Written by Götter on 07.12.2007 at 00:19 So basically, you can't give me any peer reviewed journals that actually state that, is that what you are saying? You claim that this is a scientific fact. Show me the scientific tests. Give me hard data. I want to read these reports that are out there. So far you have failed at doing so. Your claiming it is a fact. when everywhere I look I read the word theory. To quote Wikipedia, which you seem so fond of using; * A fact is an observation or a piece of data. Facts can include objective measurements which can be either pieces of verifiable evidence, or the results of an experiment which can be repeated over and over again by different people. For example, there are many observations of gravity and measurements of gravity. Every time an apple is dropped and it falls, an observation of gravity has been made. Gravity is measured every time something is weighed. So gravity can be described by scientists as a fact. This is because there is a collection of gravity observations that need to be explained. Objective observations are facts in scientific language. * Theories in science are different from facts. Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. There have been many theories that attempt to explain the fact of gravity. That is, scientists ask what is gravity, and what causes it. They develop a model to explain gravity, a theory of gravity. Predictions can be made and tested based on this theory. Many explanations of gravity that qualify as a Theory of Gravity have been proposed over the centuries: Aristotle's, Galileo's, Newton's, and now Einstein's. So gravity is also a theory. In science, current theory is the theory that has no equally acceptable alternate theory, and has not been falsified, that is there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports current theory or at least does not falsify it. In no case did gravity disappear when a new theory was created; instead, the explanation for gravity was refined and improved. The standard of Falsifiability for scientific theories was elaborated by Karl Popper as the main means through which scientific theories should be tested and disproven." Oh, and using terms like "some creationist moron" don't really help your case. It makes you sound immature and jaded, which in turn makes me not really take you all that seriously.
---- (space for rent)
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 1522  |
Posts: 1522 Written by Götter on 07.12.2007 at 02:56 Im assuming from what you said here that everything evolves from something else. Well, what did the very first organism evolve from? It cant evolve because there is nothing for it to evolve from, therefore would it have to be non-existant to the theory of evolution?
---- Visit the "Black Metal Page" on facebook, my page delivers everything black metal - Memes - Music - Humor - Interviews - Discussion. https://www.facebook.com/TheBMPage
Loading...
|
| Posts: 12300 |
Posts: 12300 Written by Dane Train on 07.12.2007 at 03:25 Hey - I am not a scientist. Or at least not yet. Nor do I have (good) access to scientific journals. Most of my information comes from sources that are written after these original "truly scientific" texts. So indeed I cannot point at any exact original research papers. The best I can do is give another nod to Richard Dawkins' writings which should be enough for the common simian. And my definition of "fact" might differ a little from yours. The only way to prove evolution in the most direct way would be to capture all these millions of years on film. Which is naturally impossible. Written by Dane Train on 07.12.2007 at 03:25 I use the term "some creationist moron" because I truly mean it and because it's the truth. Every creationist is a moron, or misguided at best. And making a case is secondary - as you may have guessed from the initial post here, I meant this thread to be a rant, at least partially. Written by Lord TJ on 07.12.2007 at 03:58 No! Again, read above. In the beginning there was the first RNA molecule, which according to our current knowledge formed so to say by "accident", through a multitude of factors present at that period of history. This substance has the capacity to reproduce itself and become more complex. That's where we got the first living cell. And everything that is alive today comes from there.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777 Written by Götter on 07.12.2007 at 02:56 Sorry, I should have been more specific. To be more clear, man did not evolve from "apes" that we know today. I'm completely serious. I use the term COMMON ANCESTOR which I believe you know. It just kind of annoys me when people fling around "monkey" and "ape" and say we evolved from those which are around today. The anthropoids (and even prosimians) that we know today ALSO evolved, but just differently. Where as they became stronger, hairier, et cetera, we started to walk upright and had larger brains. Ya get me? (By the way, the "just a theory" thing was meant to be sarcastic. Obviously gravity, cells, etc. ARE most certainly true, but they are still considered theories.)
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 12300 |
Posts: 12300 Written by Clintagräm on 07.12.2007 at 08:43 Well, they were still apes, meaning they belonged to the family hominidae. Or more precisely, hominidae refers to "great apes". But to all those who demand a proof to evolution and are satisfied with no less than an actual account spanning millions of years: try to think of how our court system works. If we have a murder victim, a person with a motive, a weapon with his fingerprints and a matching time frame, then it's likely to be enough for a verdict and a sentence. Usually you're satisfied with this, or most such court cases would be hanging indefinitely. Why doesn't such approach work for you in the case of science?
Loading...
|
| Posts: 8703 |
Posts: 8703 Written by Dane Train on 07.12.2007 at 03:12 alright man, sorry again...but as far as i know, there arent too much other possibilities...if you dont believe in Darwin´s evolution theory and not in god´s creation too, i wonder in what then? that we developed from stones? or plants? or that we were "seeded" by some extra-terrestrials?
---- My rest seems now calm and deep Finally I got my dead man sleep
Loading...
|
| Posts: 8902 |
Posts: 8902 Written by akatana on 07.12.2007 at 10:37 Taka, what was that all about? I have not once talked about God in this thread. I have not once said anything about me being a "Creationist". I am not talking about how old the earth is. None of what you mentioned has anything to do with my question. I know there were dinosaurs. I know about the age of the universe. But none of that is relative to my question. Here is my question again: Can someone please provide me with some peer-reviewed scientific journals where it states that man evolved from apes is a scientific fact. So, Taka, this has nothing to do with my faith or spirituality. I have not made any scientific statements here. This has nothing to do with religion. So please, loose the anti-religious attitude, for once, because now it has just become trite towards me. This is about evolution, and I asked one simple question, a question that so far no one has been able to answer.
---- (space for rent)
Loading...
|
| Posts: 8703 |
Posts: 8703
2Dane Train : i am not so good in giving proofs like taka is, but i repeat my question again - How we have appeared there according to you if not evolved from some "lower form of life" ?
---- My rest seems now calm and deep Finally I got my dead man sleep
Loading...
|
| Posts: 8902 |
Posts: 8902
Taka, I am not ignoring anything. Gotter said that man evolved from an ape is a scientific fact. Everything I have ever read says it is still a theory. Therefor I asked if someone can show me where, when and how this was so. I am not saying whether or not I agree, disagree, or anything like like. I want someone to show me where the scientific community has 100% agreed on this fact. That is all. So please, please, please! stop assuming I am some Fundamentalist Creationist,, I am not! I think that macro-evolution is a great theory that explains a lot of things, but it is still just that to me, a theory. Written by Ellrohir on 07.12.2007 at 21:48 I don't know. I have no solid answers. But I have ideas.
---- (space for rent)
Loading...
|
| Posts: 8703 |
Posts: 8703
so share with us  i swear on anything you want i wont be laughing...i just wanna know, because i cant imagine anything "better" than "classical evolution theory" which is really giving sense for me...
---- My rest seems now calm and deep Finally I got my dead man sleep
Loading...
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777
Yeah, but we have to remember what a theory actually is. A theory is a highly modifiable (and modified many times over) statement about naturally occurring phenomena according to tests and the empircal evidence that runs with these tests. And yes, Jed's correct, evolution is still only a theory, and not a fact. Not to enter into more religious comments, but believing evolution is a fact, without all complete proof, is no different from believing creationism to be a fact. Obviously, one "theory" is more physically viable than the other (most definitely in this case) but it is still just as ignorant to call one thing a fact over another, when neither have been proven 100%. Just my comment on the "theory" manifesto.
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
 Posts: 2751 |
Posts: 2751
Wow. This is an intense thread. You guys should look into quantum physics. It will humble you a little. It sure humbled scientists everywhere. Everything we thought we knew about the universe and reality, all that we were to have learned through science, equate to almost nothing. At the subatomic level, most "rules" and theories stop working. The structure suggests that at all matter is connected and that the amount of hidden energy, oh wait, you guys already know about Hiroshima. So science, I know nothing. Evolution? Don't know. The Magic Man Theory? Seems plausible.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777 Written by Introspekrieg on 08.12.2007 at 00:06 Yes, but just because it's a roadblock doesn't mean the The Purple Polka-Dot Elephant Guru God (my own creation, or is it?) is responsible. Don't quote me on this, but I'm quite sure some fifty years ago we had "rules of science" that didn't apply to certain situations and scientists were totally baffled. However today, we can explain these. So where then will we be fifty years from know? Get me?
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 2751 |
Posts: 2751 Written by Clintagräm on 08.12.2007 at 00:10 Haha. Didn't sense the sarcasm, did we? The magic man did it? And scientists can explain those strange happenings fifty years ago!? How do you explain matter acting like waves when no one's looking and going back to normal when measurement is attempted?
Loading...
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777 Written by Introspekrieg on 08.12.2007 at 00:18 I got the sarcasm bud, don't worry; you're mirthful raillery beguiles us all. And no, I said scientists couldn't explain them. Unless this is more lol-ing, then I missed it this time. And I'm not scientist, so I can't answer your contradictory wave statement. Lo siento.
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 2751 |
Posts: 2751 Written by Clintagräm on 08.12.2007 at 00:30 Sorry for beguiling you. I stand in awe of your massive, throbbing vocabulary muscle.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777 Written by Introspekrieg on 08.12.2007 at 00:38 Lolz. It took me a minute to make that one. I thought I'd try and flabbergast you. I see my pious adoration for literary modus enraptures you! Victory is mine! (By the way, my paramount moxie is made possible by none other than evolution! Ha!)
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 12300 |
Posts: 12300 Written by Dane Train on 07.12.2007 at 23:30 The science community never agrees on something 100%. That is the beauty of science. Even a 0,01% majority can be right of they can prove it. But the truth is that 99,9% of scientists (no, I do not have any statistical data) support evolution and it is also true that many other sciences have been found to be functional when variables and factors that stem directly from evolution have been taken into consideration. Biology and chemistry all fit together. If we removed evolution from between the two, there would be a lot of controversies. Is this an accidental? I think not. There is a difference between theory and theory. Some theories are more likely to be true than other. Humans evolving from apes is one of the more likely ones. Since evolution itself is by majority held to be true, then we must conclude that humans evolved from something, and apes being by far the most likely candidates simply leave no other choice. Apes are far too similar to humans. If we were to say that humans did not evolve from apes, we'd have to say that there is a previously undiscovered whole line of mammals who have left no evolutionary trace whatsoever. Which is very unlikely. In the light of these things do people conclude that men evolved from apes. And the possible reason why I am unable to find any journals that directly speak about humans evolving from apes is this: IF evolution is taken to be true, then humans MUST have evolved from apes. There is no other way. Either evolution is right and we come from monkeys or evolution is wrong and we are simply similar to apes and that is all. No other way.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777
Very true. Evolution most definitely seems to be the most viable theory of them all. However, what's most important is that this theory can (and should) be modified more in the future. That's the beauty of it. Anything that is seen and known to be false is thrown out and you get, further along in the future, a more logical and "provable" idea. By the way, I see the context of evolution as not only "men coming from apes" but the idea of evolution from a single cell for EVERYTHING. Every living thing came from a common ancestor, and that is this "cell." Not sure if that made since, but it is an observation that I have.
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 12300 |
Posts: 12300 Written by Clintagräm on 08.12.2007 at 01:55 And it is true. (no Jed, no journals this time either) It all began with the first cell. Let's call him Adam. He probably multiplied and we got Eve from his, well, the cellular equivalent of a rib. Evolution is not very pretty or romantic though. It turns out Eve was just a single cell, not the hottest chick you'd laid your eyes upon. Cause there hadn't been any other chicks yet. Angels maybe, but they've always presented themselves as androgynous.
Loading...
|
 Posts: 7695 |
Posts: 7695
Yes I do believe in evolution. Why? It seems reasonable and you should see one of my best friends, he practically is a gorilla! 
---- 
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 1522 |
Posts: 1522 Written by Warman on 08.12.2007 at 15:15 In the theory of evolution, wouldnt your friend be going backwards? lol
---- Visit the "Black Metal Page" on facebook, my page delivers everything black metal - Memes - Music - Humor - Interviews - Discussion. https://www.facebook.com/TheBMPage
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 240  |
Posts: 240 Written by Dane Train on 07.12.2007 at 23:30 You say "theory" like it is an insult. You don't have a clue. Do you seriously think that in the scientific community there is debate on whether or not evolution happened? I'm not aware of this and it seems to me that you are just making shit up. I suggest that you read Why Darwin Matters by Michael Shermer. It will answer all of your questions. They are easily obtainable, so I'm getting the impression that you just don't care. You can look at the evidence for evolution and deny it if that is your perogative. Those who need to accept evolution do and you can keep to your little fantasies.
---- "The worst kind of death is getting eaten by someone you love."
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 1522 |
Posts: 1522 Written by Dane Train on 07.12.2007 at 23:30 Written by El Vikingo on 09.12.2007 at 06:46 Can you feel the mood when people type or something? He said he keeps reading that its a theory, how is that sounding like an insult? He's right is he not? Written by El Vikingo on 09.12.2007 at 06:46 Nobody does. Written by El Vikingo on 09.12.2007 at 06:46 Like what? Written by El Vikingo on 09.12.2007 at 06:46 I will keep an eye out for this book. And if he didn't care why would he be in this thread? Written by El Vikingo on 09.12.2007 at 06:46 No need to bash, im assuming by what you mean for "fantasies" your meaning Christianity. Nothing of that was mentioned in this thread for what I have read.
---- Visit the "Black Metal Page" on facebook, my page delivers everything black metal - Memes - Music - Humor - Interviews - Discussion. https://www.facebook.com/TheBMPage
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 240 |
Posts: 240 Quote: It seemed to me that he was using the word "theory" as it is used in everyday speech meaning just a hunch. They scientific definition of theory is very different and evolution is one of THE MOST robust theories in science. Also, there will NEVER be something called the "law" of evolution. Not because it is not proven, but because it is a different type of physical phenomenon. Quote: Bull. The evidence in favor of evolution is enormous. Quote: ...that there is debate within the scientific community. Quote: I have my doubts about his sincerity beings that he decides to ask a group of teenage metalheads to convince him that evolution is a fact when he could pick up facts from people much more knowledgable. None of us are freaking scientists and it would be very easy for him to go to his local bookstore/library and pick something up. Quote: Nope I didn't talk at all about Christianity. I was talking about his idea that there is debate within the scientific community about whether or not evolution is a fact.
---- "The worst kind of death is getting eaten by someone you love."
Loading...
|
| Pole Kitten
Account deleted |