Evolution Bashing Thread

[SpecialMagic]

WoW shunyadragon, you have you done it....have you really ressurected the thread

The way I look at it....both creation theory and evolution theory both have their parts in both religion and science. To some, one or the other or both is just a theory, or cant be proven or what ever, to others, it is truth, it is what they believe in. Both also, seems to try to prove themselves thru science thus causing a big crash, because then we have debates over which is true and which is false. It depends I guess on the belief path a person wishes to chose. Unless will find a fact that will Bring all this to a close. Until then All we have is faith, and theories and beliefs, and studies that we will forever wonder about. That may never be explained in this life.

 

[emineman67]

Good post WOTD. Glad to see some closure, and some acceptance of the bigger issue. All this comes down to is belief.

Evolution - Natural selection causes organisms to keep only the best-suited traits.
Creationism - God put everything here just like it is.

The only room for discussion here is on the scientific facts. Other than that, it's belief, and we probably won't be changing anyone's beliefs here.

 

[RongfredK]

Intelligent design is bunk- While the watch may be suspiciously created to tell the time for no apparent reason, living things do have their own reasons to manipulate the world in the ways they do.

 

[7WoRdS]

"the earth is roughly 4 billion years old, for 2 billion there was nothing, nadda thing just atoms floating around, then as far as we one one day their was life. What caused that spark to be made to life? God."- some scientist i was watching on TV the other day.

 

[Wifeyyyy]

don't you mean some 'scientist'?

 

[Heeaaannah]

thats like sayen OJ is innocent there is so much evidance im not gunna waste time with this

 

[HaleyH]

Ah, but OJ probably IS innocent. A couple of reasons:
1. Nothing the LAPD says should be believed
2. The rich and famous do not commit cold blooded capital murder. It just doesn't happen.
Both drawn from Michale moore

 

[naturist]

I can agree to the open ended nature of reality, knowledge and investigation, and not everything is within the reach of science, but I have a problem with the way you use theory. A basic knowledge of how science uses theory, proof and law is not consistent with your use. You are using the common everyday use of of the word theory to mean some thing that is proposed and lacks proof. This not how it is used in science.

A basic knowledge of science is important in this debate. Do you know the meaning of theory, proof and law in science?

 

[Strange]

Problem here with simplistic statements. What is your scientific background to support this statement? I am a geologist and I have studied evolution for over thirty years and evolution was not started or progresses by chance.



Agreed. I am a geologist and I believe in theistic evolution.



Agreed, but you made a false statement of fact that evolution was started by chance. A basic knowledge of science would giive more room for discussion.

 

[shortgal]

Easy there shunya. It's only one sentence, so I had to over-simplify. I was referring to the differences in faith. Chance was the wrong word to use. I meant that, in general, evolutionists typically believe that the process of evolution occurs without intelligent control. Whereas classical creationists believe that everything was created at the same time, intentionally by God. I included the intelligent design bit to differentiate between Creationists and Intelligent Design supporters, which it sounds like you support. I used chance as a "filler word" to denote the absence of intelligent guidance. Unfortunately, you seem to think that I stated it as a fact, which I didn't. I stated it as a belief. For clarification, this is how I see the debate.

And please don't rag on credentials. Just because I'm not a geologist doesn't mean I don't have "a basic knowledge of science". Frankly, I think that was a bit rude.

 

[GromitFan]

Oh and I have a basic knowledge of science too thankyou very much, and I'm not a geologist either.

 

[shawntaFirstNameE]

Keep it friendly and respectful guys or I'll lock it.

 

[zaphiradragon77]

No problem, just trying to defend myself in an acceptable manner. I hope I haven't raised anyone's ire.

MasterOfNothing - I wasn't talking about the semantics of evolution. I know how those work. Reference the 20 or so posts I've contributed to this thread to see. I was referring to WOTD's post on the root of the argument.

I think I just did a sh*tty job of explaining my post. It's edited now, to reflect what I meant. What I was trying to say is that the discussion should be independant of belief, because belief has no impact on the mechanics of evolution. The conflict arises when people dispute the mechanics. We don't need to worry about beliefs here, only whether evolution is real. Like shunyadragon has said, you can support evolution and still believe in God. They aren't mutually exclusive. Hence Intelligent Design.

I'm sorry my original post said something different. I didn't mean for it to come across like that. Consider me corrected.

 

[beetlebug30]

Rewording helps, but remember the title of this thread is 'Evolution bashing', which is not the the most diplomatic of choices. The use of the word 'happened by chance' is a common bash by creationists and over simplistic. Scientists today believe this definitely not true. I do not mind, but things will get heated at times.

For example - When you have a given set of condition in a laboratory experiment and the same results occur every time you run the experiment, the results do not come about by chance. Given more complicated situations where certain elements of the situation are randomized 'chance' events, would mean that the results would still be the same, but the time frame may change the time for the randomized events to take place. When situations are very complex a non-linear relationship takes place and there is more variability in the results, but the results still follow a predictable pattern.

Our solar system is a closed system that evolved from an interstellar gas cloud. If there are more similar solar systems evolving from a gas cloud of similar mass and composition the results will be similar.

The evolution of the solar system, the earth and life occurs within the constrants of laws of existence, some of the events are randomized events, but the over all result is not by chance.

This is often demonstrated in the evolution of life on earth. It is common for animals and plants to look alike because they evolved in the same environment at different times, but they are unrelated.

 

[Sewage]

Good post Shunyadragon. The only problem is, I think your arguement falls apart when you realize that we aren't living in a big laboratory experiment. Or, in other words, we don't really have the means to examine the origins of life in other solar systems similar to our own to see if the results follow the type of predictable patterns you mention. Also, I don't think science knows anywhere near enough about the laws of existence and how they apply to the emergence of life to be able to state that it will always follow a predictable pattern.

 

[misssurfusa]

My main point was to address the over used phrase evolution by chance, but you have raised some points that need to be addressed in the same light.

Agree and disagree. It is true that science direct means means to examine the origins of life in other solar systems similar to our own to see if the results follow the type of predictable patterns you mention. Also, I don't think science knows anywhere near enough about the laws of existence and how they apply to the emergence of life to be able to state that it will always follow a predictable pattern

But a deeper understanding on what is the ability of science 'to predict' discoveries in cosmology, evolution and other sciences based on the relationships of scientific knowledge to theories and prediction. I described. One of the important criteria of theories, like that of evolution, are can science make predictions of what should be based on our current knowledge? The answer is overwhelmingly yes.

Examples:

(1) In cosmology physicists have predicted many of the finds of Hubble and other advanced technology looking out in space. They basically know what they are looking for before they find it.

Scientists have not only predicted the finding of other solar systems, but predictive models of the type of solar sytem we should find based on the type of star or stars has been very successful. This reinforces there prediction that there are solar systems like ours out there.

(2) In evolution scientists have made many predictions concerning the species and other evidence we should be finding living now and in the past, before the discoveries were made.

(3) Almost all of the discoveries in RNA, DNA and molecular genetics were made before they were discovered.

(4) The predictions of elements to be found in the periodic table have been very accurate.

 

[AlyceB]

Right, no offense taken then shunya. My problem was just that I used the wrong word to describe the absence of intentional guidance from the process. I understand the relationships between linear and non-linear relationships, I was just in the wrong mindset at the time to contribute my opinion effectively.

 

[melissapearlk]

I agree, shunya. Science can and should be able to predict a lot of important discoveries before they are made...I think that is one of the most important reasons to view things in a scientific manner. Still, it can't predict everything, and I don't think we have enough knowledge to be able to prove without a doubt how life begins.

 

[mikkiharris10]

This is very true. The origins of life called abiogenisis is one of the last fronteers of life sciences and I follow the current research closely. Part of the problem is the basic knowledge to understand it is only know coming to light.

 

[BrimstoneHalo]

It's too bad that there is so much misinformation out there regarding this subject, on both sides of the debate. If people actually took the time to sit down and learn a little bit about the way both sides of the creationist argument view abiogenesis we'd be a lot better off, and there might even end up being *gasp* constructive debate of the topic.