Evolution - Yes it DID bloody well happen!

[supernova_smash]

btw

btw, i also think religion is nothing more than a theory, as mr. loone so aptly proved. Is it fact that the bible is the word of God, or is the strength or your conviction telling you that?

 

[Sir. Loone]

Evolution=theory Creation=Absolute fact!

Creation is of GOD's design of life and the universe, it is absolute truth, and Evolution is of man's ponderring of creation and it's origins, and are mostly human theories of very limmited man! We humans, apart from God and His wisdom, are very limmited of facts of Creation, not being there, not being GOD, but being meerly human with human curiosity that God has given us about all that we see! But the Creator GOD is greater then men, and all knowledge that is brought into conflict with Creation's Creator GOD! Curiosity is good, but there are thing beyond human intellect!

 

[Sir. Loone]

Evolution=theory, Creation=Absolute fact!

Originally posted by supernova_smash
btw, i also think religion is nothing more than a theory, as mr. loone so aptly proved. Is it fact that the bible is the word of God, or is the strength or your conviction telling you that?

'Nova', my faith in GOD (Judeo-Chistian God) and His Holy Word is in no ways "theory", but of truth of the 'absolute', an knowledge & 'wisdom' infintely beyond that of men! There will be always someone greater then we!

It is absolute fact that the Bible is the very Word of GOD Himself!

 

[Teg]

supernova_smash

btw, i also think religion is nothing more than a theory, as mr. loone so aptly proved. Is it fact that the bible is the word of God, or is the strength or your conviction telling you that?

Most theories have survived tests and have a backing in observation. Religion is not a theory but a hypothesis.

Do you think that Aristotle considered it fact that the universe is made up of the four elements? I think we overestimate our reasoning abilities, and carving our postulates in stone are very closed-minded and immature.

That is unfair. There is a certain break-off where we must end doubt. Atomic theory, specific heat and functions of the cell are all accepted ideas. Evolution is just an extension of another accepted idea, mutation. We've seen this many times. Only religious bias stands in their way of seeing the likely truth.

. I'm not saying that creationism is not far-fetched sounding, but you do have to regard it as a theory, though it is obviously not as backed up as evolution.

No. It is still at the stage of hypothesis. This can be likened to any argument at inception. It has not developed itself yet. No data, no tests, not a theory. A theory is the final form of a hypothesis.

Their hypothesis is also deeply flawed. It is not in the negative form and thus introduces a great degree of personal bias. Never mind that it lacks foundational observations.

 

[Cris]

blonde_cupid,

"Any data derived from sense observation must be organized and interpreted by our fallible human organs and consciousness, and cannot yield absolutely certain empirical truths. If there is anything epistemologists and philosophers of science are in agreement on it is this: sense perception can, at best, lead to probabilities, not absolute certainties."

At best, it is most probable that evolution is a probability.

I suspect we probably agree on this. But here is my quote from earlier in this thread where I stated -

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Cris

 

[Sir. Loone]

All Life, Has Purpose and Meaning!

GOD is alone the Creator! And man knowledge is very limmited to the Earth! Evolution's theory is of mortals, GOD's Creation is of GOD the eternal, all powerful, all knowing, all seeing, omnipresent, transendent one!

GOD never changes, but we and our theories shall have constant change and revision unto the very comming of JESUS, the 2cd time to the Earth, and then all (that are alive a that time, and is not in Hell) will face the absolute truth face to face! The truth stands!

 

[Cris]

ss,

But at the same time, EVOLUTION IS NOT FACT, and I must regretfully admit that humankind really has little factual substance. We make observations that most logically explain results/evidence; we do not discover fact, we create theories that focus on the evidence.

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact.

There is also confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty.

Evolution is both fact and theory. Evolution has occurred, that is fact. How it occurred, is theory.

Cris

 

[blonde_cupid]

Cris,

***Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"***

Ooops! Sorry - I missed that.

***In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."***

O.K., then. What part(s) of the theory of evolution do you think have been confirmed to that degree?

 

[supernova_smash]

sustained

well, I would have to agree with Teg after hearing his argument about theory and hypothesis. Well put.

 

[Cris]

blonde_cupid,

***In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."***

O.K., then. What part(s) of the theory of evolution do you think have been confirmed to that degree?

To answer fully would take a whole book, instead for now I’ll quote a single example, that at least gives a flavor of an answer. I’ve quoted this example before because it is simple and easy to comprehend. If you don’t consider this adequate we can go deeper into the science, but I’m not sure this is the correct forum for that.

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.

The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution. I.e. and also a fact.

The increase in relative abundance of the dark type was due to natural selection. The late eighteen hundreds was the time of England's industrial revolution. Soot from factories darkened the birch trees the moths landed on. Against a sooty background, birds could see the lighter colored moths better and ate more of them. As a result, more dark moths survived until reproductive age and left offspring. The greater number of offspring left by dark moths is what caused their increase in frequency. This is an example of natural selection. I.e. a theoretical explanation of the facts.

Quotes taken from www.talkorigins.org

Red is mine.

Cris

 

[Sir. Loone]

No proof E=fact!

There is no solid proof of Evolution is the fact of life's origins! But only human theories of Cris's kind! The Bible, the Word of GOD's Creation is fact of life's origins!

I believe in GOD and His Word, and I only count evolution as scientific human theory of origins, but not to replace the truths of GOD's Holy Words to that of VERY LIMMITED man! That you only have a jumble of high thoughts of self and man =(pride) that deceptively says we know more then God the Creator, and does not know really very much still there is far more to this universe then we could even understand or imagine with our limmited crainial capasity! We were created in His (GOD's) image, fully formed, to the Glory of GOD, and 'time & 'chance' is not our scientific gods, but our folly of explaination of origins that is greatly flawed! GOD alone, and none other Created life! And all the universe that could be seen, even the things that are beyond, and that to which ye can not see! GOD is Supreme Intellect above all creation! Not you, nor science which is only a tool for us to learn about universe, but it was origionally used not to discredit GOD and His Holy Words,woe, but to the glory of GOD!

 

[Xelios]

Sir. Loone, the way you are representing religion it looks to me like no more than a tenet. You insist it's true and yet put forth no evidence or reasoning to support that it is. You're welcome to do so, just don't expect to succeed in "showing me the light" by doing this.

 

[Cris]

Loone,

There is no solid proof of Evolution is the fact of life's origins!

Well that is going to need you to do some studying. My simple example, which I was hoping you would be able understand shows a genetic change in a population. The example provides a fact of evolution. This is not difficult to understand and it is important that you acknowledge this before I attempt to move you forward.

What can be disputed are the theories that scientists devise to explain the actual processes that cause the change of state in a species. In this case the natural selection caused by excessive soot in an industrial period. In the example, there is no doubt, but as we move further back in time where there were no direct observations, it often becomes more difficult to find the evidence that explains a change. What scientists do not doubt is that changes did take place, these are the facts of evolution.

You must be able to accept that genes do change that can result in a significant change to a species. There are many theories that help to show how the genes change. But you cannot deny that genes change, that is fact.

Once you begin to understand these basic principles we can then start to move backwards in time and show how humans were also the result of similar selection criteria. And then further back to the origins of all life. But we will need to proceed in very simple and elementary easy to understand steps.

But only human theories of Cris's kind!

Please note that I showed a FACT and a THEORY that explained the fact – remember this. And there are only human theories; there are no other types.

I believe in GOD and His Word, and I only count evolution as scientific human theory of origins, but not to replace the truths of GOD's Holy Words.

If you believe genesis exactly as stated (i.e. you are a literalist) then I am wasting my time talking to you. If you believe God created the universe and used evolution to do it then I should be able to show you how the science of evolution and the known facts of evolution explain how life began and evolved.

If you have any real interest in science then you must also want to trust its techniques and findings since these methods do result in many superb discoveries.

Many centuries ago the ruling Christians maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. And anyone who said otherwise was viciously brutalized. Science eventually was able to show facts and theories that demonstrated that those ancient beliefs were false.

Science is now showing that genesis cannot be accepted as literal truth and it is time for Christianity to accept this, and most Christian sects do accept this obvious conclusion.

So why is it so difficult for you to join the bulk of the world’s population who have no trouble accepting evolution? Evolution is very elegant and simple in many respects and its processes have resulted in all the life we know. If this was the work of a creator could you not see how his glory is well served by accepting these evolutionary processes and facts?

Evolution is not about pride or showing that man is superior to God. Science is a discovery process, if you like it is the method that men can use to discover the glory of God.

Cris

 

[Teg]

supernova_smash

well, I would have to agree with Teg after hearing his argument about theory and hypothesis. Well put.

I think you hit on something big: an open mind is the biggest asset we have. That also means that we should weigh the merit of the argument.

a lot of evidence I think does point to evolution

I'm not saying that creationism is not far-fetched sounding

We are in agreement. We cannot completely discard any potential explanation.

 

[Sir. Loone]

The Truth shall stand, forever! GOD's Word is Truth!

The truth of GOD's Holy Word the Bible, and the Christian Faith shall stand, in the truth! Your 'Knockle-Draggers' are of this temperal world and of your own ignorance of things greater then man, causes you to stand on very thin ice, wile we that know the Truth and still hold to science, but not against the knowledge of GOD, shall stand forever! But you, only for a short time, in a blink of an eye in eternity!

We that is of GOD and of His family in Faith, has a better foundation then that of the foolish scoffers of this genoration ! You will need to come to JESUS, the one and only hope for mankind!

You will be in torment, but turn unto GOD your Creator now in life before it's too late! It's not over for none of you until, "in Hell ye shall lift up your eyes!" Then only, there's no hope!

 

[Sir. Loone]

libra 2001?

Originally posted by Xelios
Sir. Loone, the way you are representing religion it looks to me like no more than a tenet. You insist it's true and yet put forth no evidence or reasoning to support that it is. You're welcome to do so, just don't expect to succeed in "showing me the light" by doing this.

Xelios, we have told you and Cris before, that it is the Holy Spirit of GOD that draws you, not me and words! Yes, this is a spiritual thing that you may not understand, your in bondage, and needs to be set free! I know whats going on here, and you that hate the truth does not. All I and others can do is to pray for you, and to point the way to Christ, the Spirit does the rest, it could be through trials or other things but the word of GOD does not come back void, ether you go on in sin, or someday change, that only by the Spirit of GOD! I stand by the absolute truth of Faith in the 'Living GOD'!

Beware, it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living GOD!

 

[Cris]

Loone,

That post was quite pointless. You really don’t have a clue about our debate or the issues do you?

It is also insulting that I spent time trying to point out some basics for you and you either just simply ignored me or have no ability to comprehend, and then you post that offensive diatribe.

You really are a lost cause and not worth my time trying to reach you.

I’m putting you back on my ignore list.

So rant if you like but you out of my view for now. Note this site is for debating; something you have never done. Why don’t you go somewhere else where perhaps someone might be interested in what you have to say? But you are wasting both your time and ours by preaching here.

Disappointed.
Cris

 

[Tiassa]

National Academy of Sciences on Evolution

From the National Academy of Sciences:

Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed "theistic evolution," is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines.

Even the National Academy of Sciences doesn't entirely rule out God. The idea, however, is that God must eventually be shown:

The arguments of (young earth--Tiassa) creationists are not driven by evidence that can be observed in the natural world. Special creation or supernatural intervention is not subjectable to meaningful tests, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation. Indeed, claims of "special creation" reverse the scientific process. The explanation is seen as unalterable, and evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible.

In the grand scheme, science will depart from theistic evolution when the time comes to reveal God; up until that point, the goals and processes applied are the same.

Geologists have constructed a detailed history of sediment deposition that links particular bodies of rock in the crust of Earth to particular environments and processes. If petroleum geologists could find more oil and gas by interpreting the record of sedimentary rocks as having resulted from a single flood, they would certainly favor the idea of such a flood, but they do not. Instead, these practical workers agree with academic geologists about the nature of depositional environments and geological time. Petroleum geologists have been pioneers in the recognition of fossil deposits that were formed over millions of years in such environments as meandering rivers, deltas, sandy barrier beaches, and coral reefs.

Where I'm taking this from is a page at the National Academy of Sciences, from their booklet on Science and Creationism, a document I'm having a read through at present. From the FAQ Appendix:

Isn't evolution just an inference?

     No one saw the evolution of one-toed horses from three-toed horses, but that does not mean that we cannot be confident that horses evolved. Science is practiced in many ways besides direct observation and experimentation. Much scientific discovery is done through indirect experimentation and observation in which inferences are made, and hypotheses generated from those inferences are tested.

     For instance, particle physicists cannot directly observe subatomic particles because the particles are too small. They make inferences about the weight, speed, and other properties of the particles based on other observations. A logical hypothesis might be something like this: If the weight of this particle is Y, when I bombard it, X will happen. If X does not happen, then the hypothesis is disproved. Thus, we can learn about the natural world even if we cannot directly observe a phenomenon--and that is true about the past, too.

     In historical sciences like astronomy, geology, evolutionary biology, and archaeology, logical inferences are made and then tested against data. Sometimes the test cannot be made until new data are available, but a great deal has been done to help us understand the past. For example, scorpionflies (Mecoptera) and true flies (Diptera) have enough similarities that entomologists consider them to be closely related. Scorpionflies have four wings of about the same size, and true flies have a large front pair of wings but the back pair is replaced by small club-shaped structures. If two-winged flies evolved from scorpionfly-like ancestors, as comparative anatomy suggests, then an intermediate true fly with four wings should have existed--and in 1976 fossils of such a fly were discovered. Furthermore, geneticists have found that the number of wings in flies can be changed through mutations in a single gene.

     Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions. Furthermore, many key mechanisms of evolution occur over relatively short periods and can be observed directly--such as the evolution of bacteria resistant to antibiotics.

     Evolution is a well-supported theory drawn from a variety of sources of data, including observations about the fossil record, genetic information, the distribution of plants and animals, and the similarities across species of anatomy and development. Scientists have inferred that descent with modification offers the best scientific explanation for these observations.

And

Don't many famous scientists reject evolution?

     No. The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Those opposed to the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution. However, examination of the quotations reveals that the scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred. For example, the biologist Stephen Jay Gould once wrote that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." But Gould, an accomplished paleontologist and eloquent educator about evolution, was arguing about how evolution takes place. He was discussing whether the rate of change of species is slow and gradual or whether it takes place in bursts after long periods when little change occurs--an idea known as punctuated equilibrium. As Gould writes in response, "This quotation, although accurate as a partial citation, is dishonest in leaving out the following explanatory material showing my true purpose--to discuss rates of evolutionary change, not to deny the fact of evolution itself." Gould defines punctuated equilibrium as follows:

     Punctuated equilibrium is neither a creationist idea nor even a non-Darwinian evolutionary theory about sudden change that produces a new species all at once in a single generation. Punctuated equilibrium accepts the conventional idea that new species form over hundreds or thousands of generations and through an extensive series of intermediate stages. But geological time is so long that even a few thousand years may appear as a mere "moment" relative to the several million years of existence for most species. Thus, rates of evolution vary enormously and new species may appear to arise "suddenly" in geological time, even though the time involved would seem long, and the change very slow, when compared to a human lifetime.

At any rate, what good am I doing just citing the thing? Check it out. It's a tremendous source of information. I don't think there's much in there we don't already know in general. The specifics might be worth a lark

thanx all,
Tiassa

 

[Cris]

tiassa,

Some good links. Thanks.

Cris

 

[LeoDV]

I've browsed through this thread and I actually bookmarked it to keep it as a stack of arguments AGAINST evolution.

Those links are nothing but people supporting the theory of evolution, and what they say I've already heard and read, - evolution remains a theory.

I'll only stick to a string of simple fact logically ordered :

• Evolution hasn't been proven.
• However, evolution is in contradiction with genetics.
• And genetics *have* been proven.
• Following the non-contradiction rule of logic : genetics and evolution cannot both be true.
• Since genetics is true, then evolution can only be false.

It's as simple as that.