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!
| king omega
Account deleted |
|
 Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777
I always thought the Flying Spaghetti Monster debate was a fun one. I'd suggest anyone to check it out who is ignorant of it.
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 533  |
Posts: 533 Written by Dane Train on 07.12.2007 at 23:30 A theory like the concept of god, creation and afterlife?
---- Here is my actual theory beyond the huge, hilarious jokes I have: If you're so pro-life and you're so pro-child, then adopt one that's already here, that's very unwanted and very alone and needs someone to take care of it. - Bill Hicks
Loading...
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777 Written by Too many fail. on 14.12.2007 at 10:43 Those aren't theories, those are faiths. I would equate the theory of evolution with other scientific theories, such as the cell theory or the theory of relativity. To put it simply "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence," which faiths of any kind do not fit into. So I'd personally say no, not like the concept of god, creation, and afterlife. Just my opinion though.
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
 Posts: 12300 |
Posts: 12300
TJ, stop being Dane's mouth. Written by Lord TJ on 13.12.2007 at 21:55 Well, I must agree, Dane does refer to "theories" in an arrogant way. As if they were a child's attempts to present something in a way different than their parents, who know the real truth. Written by [user id=27451] on 14.12.2007 at 03:14 Although faith is allegedly in a league of itself in the understanding of the world, I would still say that I find it impossible to believe in evolution and be a Christian. Evolution destroys Christianity. My faith solution to this statement is that by discovering such a complex and supremely important field as the development of life is, the acts of creation become all too obvious and visible for them to be made by one omnipotent creator. To put it differently - seeing God through means there is no god.
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 3894  |
Posts: 3894
Everyone keeps on saying "well, blah blah, evolution is the end, still a theory". If they know what they are talking about they would know that theories applied in science is putting together of scientific FACTS in order to produce an educated view of how something works. Simple as that.
Loading...
|
 Posts: 8902 |
Posts: 8902 Written by Götter on 14.12.2007 at 14:08 I am sorry I have not replied in a while, but I was a way at a training center for a some time. Anyway, I am not using the word theory in an arrogant or negative way. I am using it in the proper scientific manner. Meaning, I agree there is a lot of evidence out there supporting concepts of evolution, but still not enough data to claim it is a scientific fact. Remember, a scientific fact can be tested over and over. We can't really do that right now, so that limits evolution to still being a theory. Now I was going to stay completely away from the whole aspect of faith, spirituality and religion in this thread, but you made an interesting claim. Could you please explain to me how evolution destroys Christianity? In fact, I am not even sure what you mean by "Christianity". Are you saying that evolution destroys the institution known as the Church? Or does it completely negate faith in God? What exactly do you mean?
---- (space for rent)
Loading...
|
| Posts: 12300 |
Posts: 12300 Written by Dane Train on 14.12.2007 at 16:32 Well, let's see how I can explain it. First, under Christianity I mean the faith that arose from Judaism and which considers Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and which believes in one god (Jehovah). Every denomination is included... Catholics, Orthodoxes, Lutherans, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. Keep in mind that this is the way I group them, if someone doesn't consider Mormons or JW's to be Christians then this is not important right now. Second, to the point that science destroys Christianity. We know about evolution and if the majority at some point in the future agrees that it is a scientific fact, and yet they maintain whatever (Christian) faith they have, then it arises an interesting controversy. Religious people hold that God is omnipotent, infinitely powerful and wise. Now, religious or not, everybody can see that the living world is a highly complex thing. Surely, God made it as such. But if us mere humans find out that life works in that precise way through evolution, then I feel it just to ask why God created it that way if he could've made it much better (probably through higher complexity). And since he didn't, and considering he's supposed to be very wise, then there is a controversy. If he deliberately made the world such as it is, and not better, then he is not good. If gods are not good, then they are not gods. If he made the world so because he couldn't either manage or visualize better, then he is not almighty. Thus he lacks the most important part of monotheistic godhood. If life is such because it is indeed the best way, and we have already discovered its mechanics, then we are obviously too wise and advanced to have need of a god. I hope you catch my drift?
Loading...
|
| Posts: 8902 |
Posts: 8902
Yes, I catch your drift. What I also catch is the fact that you don't really understand basic Christian doctrine either. But this is not the place for me to dwell on reformed theology and it's stance on cosmology, this is a thread about evolution. So for one who is uneducated on Christian doctrine, I can totally understand why you would have that view point. But back to evolution...what about animals that seem to have no distant relatives? I mean an animal that seems to sort of defy evolution?
---- (space for rent)
Loading...
|
| Posts: 12300 |
Posts: 12300 Written by Dane Train on 14.12.2007 at 17:57 I have never heard of any. Have you?
Loading...
|
| Posts: 8902 |
Posts: 8902
Yeah. The woodpeckers. How does a bird like that evolve?
---- (space for rent)
Loading...
|
| Posts: 12300 |
Posts: 12300 Written by Dane Train on 14.12.2007 at 18:04 In an extremely simplified way, how about this: there was a wee bird who ate insects that dwelled under tree bark. As the bird genus grew used to catching prey under the bark, its beak became better at penetrating it. Eventually leading to modern woodpeckers who are rather good at it. something about woodpecker evolution from Wikipedia: The phylogeny has been updated according to new knowledge about convergence patterns and evolutionary history (Benz et al., 2006; Moore et al., 2006). Most notably, the relationship of the picine genera has been largely clarified, and it was determined that the Antillean Piculet is a surviving offshoot of proto-woodpeckers. The evolutionary history of this group is not well documented, but the known fossils allow some preliminary conclusions: the earliest known modern picids were piculet-like forms of the Late Oligocene (c. 25 mya). By that time, however, the group was already present in the Americas and Europe, and it is hypothesized that they actually evolved much earlier, maybe as early as the Early Eocene (50 mya). The modern subfamilies appear to be rather young by comparison; until the mid-Miocene (10-15 mya), all picids seem to have been small or mid-sized birds similar to a mixture between a piculet and a wryneck. An enigmatic form based on a coracoid found in Pliocene deposits of New Providence, Bahamas, has been described as Bathoceleus hyphalus and probably also is a woodpecker (Cracraft & Morony, 1969).
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 533 |
Posts: 533 Written by Clintagräm on 14.12.2007 at 11:16 i hope you realised that the above was a pun : )
---- Here is my actual theory beyond the huge, hilarious jokes I have: If you're so pro-life and you're so pro-child, then adopt one that's already here, that's very unwanted and very alone and needs someone to take care of it. - Bill Hicks
Loading...
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777 Written by Too many fail. on 14.12.2007 at 20:57 Yeah, I do. I stole it from the letter sent into the Kansas School Board of Education by Bobby Henderson regarding the controversy of teaching Creationism in school along with Evolution. Let's say "thesis" or "premise" instead. Good call.
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 240  |
Posts: 240 Quote: Wrong. The theory of evolution is based on a body of facts. All of these facts point to the theory of evolution. Based on this huge body of evidence most scientists would indeed refer to the theory of evolution as being a fact. Evolution is continually tested and to say otherwise is insane. Everytime we find a new fossil and date it, we are testing evolution. If we find some species coming into being at a time that doesn't jive with what we know about evolution, then we have a problem. We haven't encountered anything of the sort.
---- "The worst kind of death is getting eaten by someone you love."
Loading...
|
 Posts: 7695 |
Posts: 7695 Written by Lord TJ on 09.12.2007 at 01:22 Hahaha probably... but he's the proof that man once was ape... or that man once will be ape maybe... 
---- 
Loading...
|
| Posts: 8902 |
Posts: 8902 Written by El Vikingo on 15.12.2007 at 01:13 You just contradicted yourself there. The theory of evolution is a fact? Wait, which is it? A theory? A fact? It can't be both.
---- (space for rent)
Loading...
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777 Written by Dane Train on 15.12.2007 at 01:39 Well, he said most scientists would refer to it as being a fact, not he himself. On this I can't comment, because I'm no scientist, but I know it is heavily supported by facts, and thus evolution, as a theory, is supported by enough of these facts to be as viable as the cell theory, the atomic theory, the theory of relativity, and so forth. Do you deny these?
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 240 |
Posts: 240
I did not contradict myself in the least. Different theories are stood behind by science by various degrees and the theory of evolution is one of the most robust theories in science backed up by an incredible number of facts. A theory can be tested and fleshed out to the point where you can say that it basically is a "fact." I still get the impression that you do not understand what a scientific theory is. From Wikipedia: "In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or 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 falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity." Basically it is a model based on an array of facts. It is not called a "theory" because it is not fleshed out enough to be called a "law" or whatever. This is simple and should be helpful: "A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it."
---- "The worst kind of death is getting eaten by someone you love."
Loading...
|
| Posts: 8902 |
Posts: 8902
No, I do understand what a theory is. I studied evolution in college. I also know that evolution is still a theory. It is a good theory. One supported by many, many facts. But macro-evolution is still not a fact. Maybe one day it will be, but as of right now, it is not.
---- (space for rent)
Loading...
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777 Written by Dane Train on 15.12.2007 at 02:07 I'm still curious as to what you personally believe? If you don't want to type it out here, I'd be more than happy to get a PM from you. It doesn't need to be a page worth, just what you simply believe. I'm not asking because I want to poke fun, but I really want to know. It can be purely scientific, religious, or a fusion of both or something completely different. I just want to know what you believe and where you're coming from. And if you're still not sure remember, no one is. Please, I'm very interested.
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 240 |
Posts: 240 Written by Dane Train on 15.12.2007 at 02:07 Haha...and that's all that it ever is going to be. A theory is a model and that's what evolution is! Evolution=a model. Jesus, I would like to think otherwise, but I STILL don't think you get it. And your stuff about maco-evolution not being a fact is nonsense. Every time that we dig up a fossil we are testing macro-evolution and as of yet we have no reason to doubt it. Everything is fitting just as it should based on the model of evolution.
---- "The worst kind of death is getting eaten by someone you love."
Loading...
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777 Written by El Vikingo on 15.12.2007 at 02:17 I'm not sure what exactly you're basing this post off of, but there is HUGE debate over all the fossils found of the genus Homo and it does not "fit just as it should." If you actually ask a scientist, or have one as a teacher, they'd tell you the exact same thing.
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 240 |
Posts: 240
That's interesting, I'll have to check it out (do you have a link?), but what is important is that there is nothing so completely out of whack that makes any sane scientist seriously doubt the theory of evolution because of it.
---- "The worst kind of death is getting eaten by someone you love."
Loading...
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777 Written by El Vikingo on 15.12.2007 at 09:08 No of course not, but I'm merely pointing out that it is by no means a final product.
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 240 |
Posts: 240
There really is nothing that we know of in science that we can say is the final product. It is going to be a long god damned time before we finally get gravity completely right. The finer points of evolution are going to be debated for a long fricking time, but it is hard to imagine the fundamental idea of evolution by natural selection being shot down.
---- "The worst kind of death is getting eaten by someone you love."
Loading...
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777 Written by El Vikingo on 17.12.2007 at 07:06 Of course, but that means don't jump all over someone's ass for saying it's a theory, because it is, with holes yet to be filled. In time, I'm confident they will be. But for the time being, we must all acknowledge the flaws and holes in science.
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 240 |
Posts: 240
Wow, wow, wow. I wasn't jumping on his ass just because he said it was a theory. It is a theory. What I don't think he understood is what a theory is and he was speaking as though for evolution to be respected it has to change from a theory to something "higher." It will always be a theory because a theory is just simply a model AND THAT'S WHAT EVOLUTION IS. That is why I jumped on his ass. 
---- "The worst kind of death is getting eaten by someone you love."
Loading...
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777 Written by El Vikingo on 17.12.2007 at 07:29 Well I wouldn't worry too much. I believe Dane is pretty learned in the department to know what a theory is. An attempt to explain natural phenomena. An attempt. Attempt. Get me? Doesn't mean a certainty. An attempt. No more ass jumping, please.
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 240 |
Posts: 240
"an attempt to explain natural phenomena" That is not a good all encompasing explanation of a theory. Pretty horrible in fact. There really is nothing else that I could say that wouldn't be repeating what I've already said, so I wont bother anymore. "No more ass jumping, please." Haha...no way jose.
---- "The worst kind of death is getting eaten by someone you love."
Loading...
|
