Evolution - Fact or Fiction?

[strawberijam518]

Quote by: Isherwood Wrong. While atheism doesn't have a cause, it exists as a belief because there is no god. Atheism is the normal state of the mind when not introduced to the supernatural superstition of theism. Atheism is what was here before theism and will survive after we advance beyond the need to believe in invisible father-figures.

uh, no. that would be wrong. Religion has existed since the beginning of history...first with Paganism and idols, all the way to the current state of religion with the diverse denominations. Atheism did not exist until more modern history.

[RickSp]

Quote by: strawberijam518 uh, no. that would be wrong. Religion has existed since the beginning of history...first with Paganism and idols, all the way to the current state of religion with the diverse denominations. Atheism did not exist until more modern history.

LOL. You are joking right? Exactly when would you suggest that atheism sprang to life?

[madprophet]

Quote by: strawberijam518 OK, so you're saying what makes something scientific is if it's varifiable, provable, or disprovable? What about evolution? We can't observe evolution happening, now can we. In that case, the theory of evolution isn't very scientific, is it?

Oh, I think the mounds and mounds of scientific papers, written by the thousands of working scientists, and published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals are evidence that the Theory of Evolution conforms to the Scientific Method and thus is qualified to be called a theory under the scientific definition of the word. Evolution is consistent, useful and parsimonious. It is being constently corrected as new evidence is collected and experiments are performed. It makes predictions about what we can expect to find as we add to our knowledge base. It conforms to all observed data and can incorporate new data as we discover it.

Creationsim does none of this. In fact, as you've just proven in your response to my post, Creationism is simply a religious challenge to the findings of modern science. It's not science and any attempt to paint it as such shows a complete ignorance of the very foundations of modern science (as evidenced by the creationist claim that evolution can't be observed.)

[madprophet]

Quote by: strawberijam518 uh, no. that would be wrong. Religion has existed since the beginning of history...first with Paganism and idols, all the way to the current state of religion with the diverse denominations. Atheism did not exist until more modern history.

HAHAHA! That's only if you hold the religious view that history began only six millenia ago and people sprang forth from mud in there current form.

[Sean]

Welcome to the site strawberry. We already have a huge discussion on evolution. Feel free to continue with that one or debate yours, which has become more of a personal argument, here (this particular forum is a bit more casual than our other debate sections).

welcome

[Technosoul]

I did not read any of the other postings but my opinon off the cuff is that evolution is not fact or fiction at this stage of research, it is a work in progress and an ongoing evolution in our knowledge based on continued research.

[underbear1]

Darwin's theory just ONE man's idea of creation, and Christianity's version of Creation begins with ONE God.That Intelligent Design concept of eyes being so complicated they couldn't have randomly evolved, I think more than one God/Goddess would be needed to explain the complexity of eyes.
So I suggest we go back to the tried and true Olde Time Religion, that Western Culture was built upon.
http://www.desy.de/gna/interpedia/gr.../creation.html

"In the begining there was only chaos. Then out of the void appeared Erebus, the unknowable place where death dwells, and Night. All else was empty, silent, endless, darkness. Then somehow Love was born bringing a start of order. From Love came Light and Day. Once there was Light and Day, Gaea, the earth appeared.
Then Erebus slept with Night, who gave birth to Ether, the heavenly light, and to Day the earthly light. Then Night alone produced Doom, Fate, Death, Sleep, Dreams, Nemesis, and others that come to man out of darkness.

Meanwhile Gaea alone gave birth to Uranus, the heavens. Uranus became Gaea's mate covering her on all sides. Together they produced the three Cyclopes, the three Hecatoncheires, and twelve Titans.

However, Uranus was a bad father and husband. He hated the Hecatoncheires. He imprisoned them by pushing them into the hidden places of the earth, Gaea's womb. This angered Gaea and she ploted against Uranus. She made a flint sickle and tried to get her children to attack Uranus. All were too afraid except, the youngest Titan, Cronus. "
continued on the link above.

[gallo]

Quote by: strawberijam518 FYI, I didn't pick which "category" my post would go into, K?

No. Pay attention to what you are doing. You had to click on "Philosophy & Religion" in order to post since posting from the Home page is not possible.

Quote by: strawberijam518 And when I use the term "believe" I imply what one holds as their personal worldview.

But if you use a non-standard definition of a word, it would be best to explain that to us or you won't be understood. However, when I take your special definition into account I must say that I don't "believe in" evolutionary theory. It isn't my "world view" any more than gravity is my world view.

Quote by: strawberijam518 If you understand something, yet don't believe in it, that would imply that you understand it but think it's not valid or wrong.

No it doesn't. In fact, my view of gravity, nuclear physics, evolutionary theory, plate tectonics, etc. are quite the opposite. I don't "believe in" any of them but I do recognize that those theories of science are the best explanations that we have that explain all of the observed facts. Moreover, since the explanations for all of those are, in fact, scientific theories, that means that each has been test and found to be correct beyond any reasonable doubt.

Quote by: strawberijam518 I understand the evolutionary theory just fine, but how bout you?

Obviously you don't.

Quote by: strawberijam518 Are you a believer in microevolution or macroevolution? Are you a Darwinist, a Gradualist (neo-Darwinism), or a Punctuationist (punctuated equilibrum)?

Aside from your use of believe again, if you change that to whether I accept those scientific theories as essentially correct, the my answers are, "yes, yes, yes, and yes." I accept microevolution and macroevolution. I am a Darwinist, a gradualist, a neo-Darwinist, and a punctuationist (never heard that word before). I suspect that you don't know what any of those means.

And to kill more than one bird with a single stone, I'll go on to your next misunderstanding.

Quote by: strawberijam518 OK, so you're saying what makes something scientific is if it's varifiable, provable, or disprovable?

I presume you mean "verifiable." One of the salient features in the definition of modern science, a feature that has generated shelves of books in discussions of the philosophy of science, is that it is falsifiable. That means that for an hypothesis to be scientific, there must be some testable condition with the power to conclusively show that the hypothesis is wrong. Scientific theories can be disproved, but nothing in science is logically proved. It can be tested and found to hold true beyond reasonable doubt, but in science there is always the possibility that new data will cause a change in the hypothesis. It only takes one exception to disprove an hypothesis, but it is impossible to test every condition, everywhere, at all times - so science is tentative.

Quote by: strawberijam518 What about evolution? We can't observe evolution happening, now can we.

Yes. We can. It has been observed often. I wonder why, if you actually understand evolution as you claim, you don't know that.

Quote by: strawberijam518 In that case, the theory of evolution isn't very scientific, is it?

Since your "case" is wrong, evolutionary theory is scientific. Why don't you explain to us how creationists can claim that creationism is scientific. Why don't you explain for us exactly what the "creation scientific method" is. I'll give you a explanation of the scientific method in my answer.

And I'll even get a third bird from your next post.

Quote by: strawberijam518 Religion has existed since the beginning of history...first with Paganism and idols, all the way to the current state of religion with the diverse denominations.

I think that religion existed since before history. It's a way that people can explain what they fear - it's either powerful beings or evil spirits. Religion was a means to have some control by performing rituals that appeased the gods.

Quote by: strawberijam518 Atheism did not exist until more modern history.

And you know this how?

[grandpa]

Quote by: strawberijam518 I am starting this thread to gather viewpoints on the origin of species...how we got here...

Before anyone goes to in depth with this, we should keep in mind evolution does not explain much philosophically. Evolution and why we exist are basically different issues.

Grandpa h.

[strawberijam518]

OK gallo,

If you really knew your evolution, you would know that you cannot in any way possibly be a Darwinist, a Gradualist, and a Punctuationist.

If you don't know what all these big words mean, find a dictionary.

As far as my scientific Christian view, here it is
God created the world, as depicted in Genesis, in 6 days...and it was good. (If you don't know the story, I'm sure since you're on the internet you can find at least one version of it...start at Genesis 1:1) This was roughly 8-12,000 years ago.

In the Garden of Eden (scientifically varified as having been in the Fertile Crescent between the Tigris and Euphrates (exuse spelling) Rivers) God created all the species of animal that now exist. He did not, however create every single variation of these animals. E.G., there would have been one basic type of finch, not 15; one basic type of dog, not the hundreds of breeds we have now.

Over the time that has passed between then and now, Darwin's theory of natural selection has taken place in these different species as they continued to reproduce: thus, microevolution.

Man was created on the sixth day, and thus I need not explain away the fact that there are no intermediate links in the geological column.

I don't know what else you want me to explain...but please, if you have any questions, let me know.

[RickSp]

Yo jelly,

Pretty funny for someone who apparently believes that the world is only around 10,000 years old to be lecturing others on the schools of thought related to evolution. And what is your evidence for this wonderous cosmology? A literal interpretation of the Bible, no doubt.

Your list of schools of thought is far from complete and your claim "you cannot in any way possibly" understand and appreciate various approaches to evolution is absurd.

[rez]

what are the chances strawberijam voted for George Bush? I ask again, if he can't even understand basic science, what makes him able to discuss other things?

[thirdeyeblindis]

I believe that evolution happened because it's hard to imagine that anything else could have made things the way they are today. But I still believe that there was a higher being who started it all.

[Jack]

As far as my scientific Christian view, here it is God created the world, as depicted in Genesis, in 6 days...and it was good. (If you don't know the story, I'm sure since you're on the internet you can find at least one version of it...start at Genesis 1:1) This was roughly 8-12,000 years ago.

How would you explain the relationship between the size of the solar system and the speed of light then? No galaxy could possibly be further from our own than light can travel in 12000 years. Yet they are.

In the Garden of Eden (scientifically varified as having been in the Fertile Crescent between the Tigris and Euphrates (exuse spelling) Rivers) God created all the species of animal that now exist. He did not, however create every single variation of these animals. E.G., there would have been one basic type of finch, not 15; one basic type of dog, not the hundreds of breeds we have now.

So penguins and polar bears were "created" in the Middle East? Would "animals" include viruses and one-celled creatures? One "basic" breed of dog, eh? Which one? The only accepted ancestor of the common canine is the wolf (or rather, a lupine-type animal). Was the "original" dog a chihuahua or Great Dane?

Over the time that has passed between then and now, Darwin's theory of natural selection has taken place in these different species as they continued to reproduce: thus, microevolution. Man was created on the sixth day, and thus I need not explain away the fact that there are no intermediate links in the geological column.

So you can show that what amount of evolution you'll allow could have occurred within your 12000 year limit? And by what mechanism did evolution occur so massively in such a short span of time? And let's not forget the old but faithful...how did god manage to create the sun and moon on the third day, and what constituted the first two days (since by commonly accepted definition day and night are determined by the movements of the Earth and Sun)?

[Plasma Snake[D]]

Another question is that dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the Bible. From the creation of the universe to apocalypse, they say nothing about it. This is because dinosaurs were discovered recently, waaaay after the bible was condensed into a book. I remember one day I was riding the subway after school with one of my friends, and I told him this theory of mine. Suddenly out of nowhere some fat guy starts scolding me and trying to explain where in the bible he thinks they mention "large creatures". My friend was laughing at me, so I didnt really pay much attention.

[madprophet]

Doesn't the bible also say that the world is flat and that it's placed at the center of the universe?

[strawberijam518]

Quote by: madprophet Doesn't the bible also say that the world is flat and that it's placed at the center of the universe?

I'd like a reference to that.

[strawberijam518]

Quote by: Isherwood How would you explain the relationship between the size of the solar system and the speed of light then? No galaxy could possibly be further from our own than light can travel in 12000 years. Yet they are.

I direct you to read The Starlight and Time, by Dr. Humphreys

Here is a scientific explanation of your claim, and the evidence in this book is far to deep and requires far too much background information to explain here.

[strawberijam518]

Quote by: RickSp Yo jelly, Pretty funny for someone who apparently believes that the world is only around 10,000 years old to be lecturing others on the schools of thought related to evolution. And what is your evidence for this wonderous cosmology? A literal interpretation of the Bible, no doubt. Your list of schools of thought is far from complete and your claim "you cannot in any way possibly" understand and appreciate various approaches to evolution is absurd.

To truly understand any scientific theory, you must understand the controversial theories opposing it. Just because I think the world was created 10,000 years ago has nothing to do with my understanding of evolution.

[RickSp]

Quote by: strawberijam518 To truly understand any scientific theory, you must understand the controversial theories opposing it. Just because I think the world was created 10,000 years ago has nothing to do with my understanding of evolution.

If you believe the world is only 10,000 years old then you clearly do no understand evolution, among many other things.