Evolution

[heretic888]

That's why I said far from proof...I never said it was even close to scientific proof. Just thought it interesting. I went out looking at websites, and found it.

Note: I didn't get any information from it, though.

Very well. :asian:

I never said either arguement was valid.

My personal belief is that evolution as it is typically conceived is true, but partial. I think the idea is accurate as far as it goes, but feel there is more to evolutionary adaptations and so forth than "random genetic mutations" and "survivability impulses".

I lean more towards the likes of Hegel, Sri Aurobindo, and Tielhard de Chardin on this one.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Very well. :asian:



My personal belief is that evolution as it is typically conceived is true, but partial. I think the idea is accurate as far as it goes, but feel there is more to evolutionary adaptations and so forth than "random genetic mutations" and "survivability impulses".

I lean more towards the likes of Hegel, Sri Aurobindo, and Tielhard de Chardin on this one.

Heretic,

You say you lean towards, not stand 100% behind. I agree, that I have not found one theory or piece of evidence that explains all the questions.

:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Aquatic apes?

To my mind, the only real question is this: why do people who live in a vast, beautiful, wonderful universe find the way that universe works so frightening?

The sheer arrogance of believing that Everything Revolves Around Us never ceases to amaze me. Yikes.

Yes Aquatic Apes Mr McRobertson. Check it out, it is an interestng read.

As to the universe I agree to me it is wonderful, and frightening. I only know this little planet and those on it frighten me from time to time.

As to arrogance and revolving around us, humans. Has been around for a long time. The world is Flat. Then the world was round and the sun rotated around us. Then, there are people who still do not believe that travel to the moon was possible or happened. I have been jaded maybe, because it does not amaze me as much as it use too.

 

[heretic888]

You say you lean towards, not stand 100% behind. I agree, that I have not found one theory or piece of evidence that explains all the questions.

True enough, but this does not mean all theories are necessarily equally valid.

 

[Rich Parsons]

True enough, but this does not mean all theories are necessarily equally valid.

:rofl:

You can say that again

:asian:

 

[qizmoduis]

qizmoduis.

I never said either arguement was valid.

I never said I truly believed in either arguement.

I believe, I did say that people will find what they are looking for. (* Only I did not put it into those words *)

:asian:

Oh I know.
In fact, regarding the aquatic ape thingy, you actually posted a link to a very well-written critical analysis rather than a hype page.

I was just giving my opinion on those things. Hovind, especially, always makes me laugh.

 

[Phoenix44]

"Prove that we used to be monkeys." That's a ludicrous statement, and is not the point of the doctrine of evolution. And I suspect that you know that.

There is a tremendous body of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE supporting evolution. If you ever studied comparative anatomy, the evidence would be patently obvious.
The physical evidence is even MORE compelling now, with advances in genetics and molecular biology. If you were really interested, you could see just how close our DNA is to that of gorillas and chimpanzees, for instance.

You don't need to trash the principle of evolution in order to retain your belief in creation. You're free to believe what you want. But you can't argue faith with science, and vice versa. I personally don't believe they are mutually exclusive, but some people might.

 

[heretic888]

Nicely said, Phoenix. My sentiments exactly. :asian:

 

[Cryozombie]

You don't need to trash the principle of evolution in order to retain your belief in creation. You're free to believe what you want. But you can't argue faith with science, and vice versa. I personally don't believe they are mutually exclusive, but some people might.

But... you assume so much... Did I ever say I believe in creationism, or that they are exclusive of one another? Nope!

In fact, I stated that I do believe that evolution exists, except that no "Hard Scientific Evidence" exsists that shows one "speicies" becoming another species... and that I find it just as hard to believe we were once "monkeys", based on some conjecture... Yes, there is scientific evidence to support A THEORY that we evolved from the primordial "nothing" after the big bang... but no hard evidence that it ACTUALLY happened, just mixed evidence to support the plausability of it.

There have been scientific studies that support A THEORY that man was created by a Divine Being... Discovery channel runs specials about the scientific evidence that supports some of what the bible claims too... (Of course the problem there is most of the scientists who do those studies are often religious themselves, and therefore scoffed at by Aithiests and Agnostics who disclaim their findings, oftentimes only because of their religious beliefs, not because of their lack of "scientific principle")

There have been scientific studies that SUGGEST the possibility of extra-terrestrial life forms, tand hat COULD support the THEORY that we were "seeded" here by another race...

The way I see things... The Creationists discount "Evolution" based on the lack of "complete" evidence in the fossil record and the continued discoveries of not only errors but outright "frauds" used to prove the theorys.

The Evolutionists discount creationism, believing that hard science has "enough" data to support all the missing information. The discount any opposite or contradictory findings stating "its just those wacky religoinits trying to prove a point"

And the ET Seed Theory people? Well... they just keep drinking coolaid while sitting on the roof of a barn in their underware and sticking rolls of quarters in their... yeah... :idunno:

 

[Phoenix44]

But... you assume so much... Did I ever say I believe in creationism, or that they are exclusive of one another? Nope!

Actually, YOU assume so much. What made you think I was talking about you?

The fossil record may be incomplete. But there is other evidence: DNA. Comparative anatomy. Embryology. Biochemistry.

I'd suggest everyone read Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World." It's a well-written lesson in critical thinking.

 

[Cryozombie]

Actually, YOU assume so much. What made you think I was talking about you?.

Ummm... Hmmm... er... maybe because you, uh, you know...

QUOTED ME.

I said "Prove that we used to be monkeys."

 

[Andi]

What do these "creationists" say about fossils then out of interest?

 

[Touch Of Death]

What do these "creationists" say about fossils then out of interest?

The great flood.
Sean

 

[rmcrobertson]

"In fact, I stated that I do believe that evolution exists, except that no "Hard Scientific Evidence" exsists that shows one "speicies" becoming another species... and that I find it just as hard to believe we were once "monkeys", based on some conjecture... Yes, there is scientific evidence to support A THEORY that we evolved from the primordial "nothing" after the big bang... but no hard evidence that it ACTUALLY happened, just mixed evidence to support the plausability of it.

There have been scientific studies that support A THEORY that man was created by a Divine Being... Discovery channel runs specials about the scientific evidence that supports some of what the bible claims too... (Of course the problem there is most of the scientists who do those studies are often religious themselves, and therefore scoffed at by Aithiests and Agnostics who disclaim their findings, oftentimes only because of their religious beliefs, not because of their lack of "scientific principle")"

1. Absolutely untrue. I suggest looking at the work of Louis and Mary leakey, among others, as well as the very extensive fossil record of, "transitional," stages in the development of all sorts of new species. Which, by the way, appear in a far-more complex way than simple succession.

2. Absolutely not true. Among other things, I suggest you look at a) Hubble's Constant and the discussion of red shift; b) the COBE satellite findings of several years ago.

3. These "scientific," programs ("Hello. I'm Charlton Heston, and tonight: science uncovers Noah's Ark.") are hardly science of the same rigor, any more than, "Alien Autopsy," was. I recommend reading Sagan, Gould, et al, on what science actually is.

4. I continue to have a very hard time understanding why, a) people find the beautiful, diverse, immense material universe in which they live so scary and contemptible; b) some religious folks don't simply argue that their way of seeing reality--their idealism--is every bit as valid as scientific materialism, and simply face the facts that the two ways of knowing are different.

5. I continue to be amazed at the repeated statements and suggestions that it is impossible to believe the Bible and accept scientific evolution, given the history of science's development as a branch of humanist enquiry, itself tied directly to Christian thought. After all, it used to be said that the Author of all things left us two books to read--the Bible, and Nature, and if we were too stupid to see that these two books in fact agreed with each otherand were complementary, well, that wasn't because God got things wrong. It was because of our own blindness, our own limitations. By the way, this is pretty much the position of the Catholic Church at this time, so....you're kinda stuck with Christians who but both books.

 

[Cruentus]

I would like to second Roberts #4 and #5.

:ultracool

 

[Cryozombie]

1. Absolutely untrue.

2. Absolutely not true.

The problem with "broad" statements like that is the "Truth" is based on which scientist you choose to believe...

Clarke Says austrlopithecnes are definatley related to humans.
Oxnard says they arent.

Supporters of Clarke say Oxnards study was incomplete.
Supporters of Oxnard say that the studys by Clarke were wrong.

Who's "Truth" do you want to accept? The same arguments can be applied to ANYTHING where experts disagree... Dr. Atkins provides a bunch of proof that his Diet is the best, and it is Argued by many MDs it is, and by many MDs it isnt... You have "expert witnesses" in court who do the same thing... Its all a matter of who's "truth" you subscribe to.

3. These "scientific," programs ("Hello. I'm Charlton Heston, and tonight: science uncovers Noah's Ark.") are hardly science of the same rigor, any more than, "Alien Autopsy," was. I recommend reading Sagan, Gould, et al, on what science actually is.

You misunderstood, or I misspoke, I didn't reference the programs as scientific evidence, I was trying to say that they spoke about the scientific research and/or researchers. Keep in mind, before you blanketly discount them because they were "tv shows" that some media has to be used to "get the information out there"... and based on my original statement above of "who ya gonna believe" applies to this as well... YOU can say everything on TV is fake, and I can say everything in a book is fake... but that wouldnt make either of us right.

 

[heretic888]

Hrmmmm.... I would reply to some of Technopunk's misconceptions, but Robert already addressed everything I feel needs addressing. Well done.

I would add the caveatte that I believe the relationship between "religion" (subjective phenomena) and "science" (objective phenomena) is a bit more subtle and complex than has been portrayed, I personally believe the two are distinct but inseparable myself.

Just my opinion. Laterz. :asian:

 

[Cryozombie]

Hrmmmm.... I would reply to some of Technopunk's misconceptions, but Robert already addressed everything I feel needs addressing. Well done.
Just my opinion. Laterz. :asian:

I disagree, you can hardly call a belief that different groups of scientists have different opinions a misconception... If they were all in 100% agreement this coverstaion wouldnt be happening.

And bear in mind I am not speaking from a "Religious" standpoint...

Even back when i was (gasp oh no) a hardcore Satanist (go ahead throw rocks or whatnot) I thought the idea of Evolution was a bit... hmmm... farfetched... Could have happened, but then why havn't we found all the "stages of man" (Unfortuantly, as best as i could tell from a few internet articles on the subject, there are still gaps that we are theorizing about, if someone has a COMPLETE chart, with findings from all the stages please post it.)

But regardless of which side you are on it really does come down to the fact that "Expert A" says "Data A" proves my theory, and "Expert B" says "Data A" is wrong, because "Expert B" found "Data B" ... blah blah blah...

Carbon dating works. Carbon dating doesnt work. There was a brontosaurus. There wasnt a brontosaurus. We landed on the moon. We didnt land on the moon it was a conspiracy. Whatever. Side A vs Side B.

Personally, until I see "solid proof" one way or the other I will remain skeptical. I've checked out some of the findings of Louis and Mary Leakey, and the findings of their son which seems ON THE SURFACE to contradict some of their findings... (there is a dating issue there, if you would like to see the article i bookmarked it at work) and members of Camp A defend it as "Rock Solid" and members of Camp B say "Full of Holes"

All I can say for sure is as science advances we may yet find out, no?

I'm not, by any means looking at this like ShaolinWolf (sorry buddy) and saying "God Made Man, noone can prove otherwise" I'm saying I personally would like to see more evidence before I take the "leap of faith" (haha) into science's "findings" Maybe I just dont want to admit I was a monkey in a past life.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

Not too much offense taken. I just have taken it to belief that God created man and that no one can prove otherwise to me. Call me hard headed and junk, I don't care. I've been brought up on it all my life and I've had a personal relationship with God for quite some time. I don't see how it can be otherwise because of all the Christian scientists(again no references, but really, there is no point to putting them up at this point). I've seen logic work and the thing that has worked me up with evolution is they say it's a theory and creationism is a theory, yet they teach evolution in schools and expect no one to balk it. Hmph! I see it as offensive as people think creationism is. I mean, that's just not right. Why are we being taught a theory like that in school when it has to be accepted or not by the individual? And the whole thing with church and state. That kind of collides with it.

And Prayer is offensive. LOL. And evolution is not. ROFL!!!!!

:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

The problem, fundamentally, T'punk and SW, is that you simply do not know what science is.

The revelatory statement is this: "I just have taken it to belief that God created man and that no one can prove otherwise to me."

First off, science is not a belief system. Its theories, and their supports, are based on material reality: we get a better picture of material reality, the theories necessarily change. (Yes, I've read Kuhn, Feyerabend and other discussions of the history of science. Have you?) As Gould and others have been pointing out for going on two centuries (!), the way science adapts to new facts is not a sign of weakness in method, but of strength.

Why? Because unlike the pure faith cited, scientific theories are indeed falsifiable. They can be tested by observation and experiment, as religious beliefs cannot. Otherwise, they would not be science. The results can be duplicated, as religious experience cannot.

If you'll actually LOOK at the discussions of Gould and others, you'll find things that you will not find in the cheap TV shows and pseudo-scientific "Institute for Creation Science," nonsense--including a certain humility, a willingness to accept new data, and an interest in re-examining one's own premises. But then, personally I find it incredibly arrogant to announce that God gave ME the Truth and nobody else, that everybody has to play by my MY rules or burn in hell--and that I don't have to look at the data in order to know it all.

And again, science rests on a willingness to think about who we are and what the world is. If your mind's made up, if you're afraid of the data and the theories, that's going to be hard to do.

The real reasons people refuse to look at the data and the ideas seriously have very little to do with the integrity of scientific thought. They have to do with a stubborn insistence that Man is the center of the universe, that (sorry, folks, but it is in part a racial fantasy) we did not originate in Africa, that men are superior to women (oddly, the creationists often borrow evolutionary arguments when it suits their purposes), that their set of morals is better than anyone else's (note how often evolution gets linked to claims that them lesbians and leftists is a-takin' over our schools?), that capitalism is great (again, note the adoption of social Darwinist ideas).

The posts are revealing: when you say, "I don't need to look," when you cite cheesy TV, well....you gots a problem arguing. For example--I know the fundamentalist Christian arguments about this, the ICS claims, and a good deal about the Bible. But I also know the scientific method, some of the basic texts involved (like Darwin), and a lot of the modern discussion from folks like Gould. You don't, and you tell me you won't look. So...unless we start dragging the Almighty into it, who wins the discussion?

I also note that, as usual, there's a continued avoidance of certain issues. Like the fantasy that Christians cannot legitimately accept and/or teach evolution--good to know the Pope isn't a good Christian.

There are a lot of things in education that offend the hell out of students and parents. And ya know what? Good. Education isn't about learning lists of aimless, well-edited facts. It isn't about being patted on the head and reassured. It's about learning what is true, insofar as we know what is true. And it's about learning to think. And, it's about growing up.

To me, those are among the REAL offenses of evolutionary theory.