the theory of evolution ...

[Ursa Majoris]

honestly, i have no idea if we evolved or not. my faith tells me we did not, but faith is not fact. those that cling to evolution, however, as THE scientifically verified answer, could be just as far off base. it is nice to see that acknowledged by some vs. us walking around believing without a doubt that homo sapiens originated from single celled organisms and the events that connect us to those blobs of protoplasm are random and purely survival based. we seem pretty far beyond that as a species when you consider music, art, love, etc. i'm poking at it not so much from being an expert on facts but more from seeing if those that firmly believe in evolution leave any room for doubt in that belief. that maybe we are more special than that and that our lives here could actually have purpose and some higher meaning ...

That music, art, love, et al - it's evolution.

[tonorator]

Why are you hell bent on ignoring Science to validate your faith?

 

i'm not trying to ignore it, i'm wondering if it really does prove evolution. today there just seems to be so many huge gaps that it is amazing that so many believe it just a matter of time before they are filled. also, there is so much diversity and beauty and complexity in the world that just maybe our grand ideas of science and how far we think we've come only just scratch the surface.

 

it's stuff like this that blows my mind ...

 

Okay, here's a scenario. You're walking down a path, you look down, and there's this little beetle, about one half an inch long. Then, right behind it, is a huge bullfrog, and you're thinking, "Man, that beetle has no chance of ever getting away from that bullfrog." Then, the bullfrog makes his move. You blink, and the next thing you know, the frog is running off, the beetles still there, and there's a strange aroma in the air. OK, the aroma stinks. You wonder how all this could happen, that the beetle could scare off a bullfrog that is four or five times its size?

 

Well, I'll tell you. That little beetle is a wonder. In fact, it's practically a miniature fire breathing dragon, just the fire comes out the other end. Now, how does this miniature "dragon" shoot out a spray that is not only noxious, but is also heated to 212º F, a temperature hotter than boiling water? This little beetle was studied, and it was discovered that the beetle has two chemicals stored in its body, hydrogen peroxide dissolved in water, and hydroquinine. If you mixed the two chemicals, the peroxide would oxidize the hydroquinine. But the beetle adds an inhibitor to stop the hydrogen from oxidizing the hydroquinine. These chemicals are mixed in the beetle with no reaction. When a predator such as a bullfrog comes along, the beetle squirts the chemicals into a combustion chamber. He then mixes in two enzymes, catalase and peroxidase, a catalyst(a catalyst is a chemical that makes chemical reactions happen extremely fast, without any actual change to the catalyst itself, allowing the catalyst to be used over, and over...)The chemicals and the the enzymes mix and produce another chemical, quinine, which smells bad. He holds these chemicals in storage chambers which he has in his body.

 

When an enemy such as our bullfrog comes along looking for a lunch, the beetle squirts the chemical's into combustion chambers, adding two enzymes which act as "anti-inhibitor's." The chemicals and the the enzymes mix and produce another chemical, quinine, which smells bad. This all happens at a extremely fast rate, fast enough to heat the chemicals to 212º F, and generating a lot of pressure. Finally, when there's enough pressure, the bombardier beetle opens the valves which he has at the end of his combustion tube, and KA-BOOM. Good-bye predator.

 

Scientists have also found that some species can shoot out this spray at the rate of 500 pulses per second. Now how could this beetle have evolved from a ordinary beetle as evolutionists say? I mean, think about this. Now here is the first bombardier beetle, and it decides that it needs a weapon against all these predators that are roaming around. So it decides to evolve one. So a million years later, it has somehow evolved all the chemicals, including the inhibitor, and the combustion chamber. So One beetle decides to mix the chemicals with the anti inhibitor. And BOOM, oops, the beetle forgot to make the valves so that the chemical mixture could escape. End of beetle, end of any future descendants. Or, maybe it has everything but the inhibitor and anti-inhibitor. Well, without the inhibitor to stop the chemical reaction, the chemicals go BOOM, end of beetle, end of family tree. I could go on all day with different scenarios, but I don't want to bore you much more than I already have.

 

OK, Now lets say that the bombardier beetle for some reason decides to wait until it has everything to work the system, but wait, it would never get that far. Why? Because according to the theory of evolution creations evolve from genetic mistakes, and if the mistake happens to be good, then natural selection eliminates the animal that it descended from and it stays. But, if the mutation is bad, or doesn't matter, then the mutated beetle just dies out, along with any future descendants. Now, since the bombardier beetle can't use it's "cannon" until everything is evolved, then it won't have any advantage over its predecessors for quite a while, so the bombardier beetle would die out before it could evolve his"cannon" enough to use. Well, I guess that's enough on the amazing Bombardier Beetle.

 

that's just one bug. check out this idea on evolution:

 

Evolution is a blind, unconscious mathematical property of any system of things that make imperfect (those very close) copies of themselves in an environment where the quality of the copy affects the copying rate; consequently, it can be rather easily simulated on a computer. This technique is now used in academia and industry, and is referred to variously as genetic algorithms (GA's), genetic programming, and evolutionary programming. For example, in GA's the ideal design of an airplane wing isn't created by a designer, but is instead "evolved" through random mutation, recombination and selection. The results are often completely unanticipated by the creators of the GA. Such applications of evolutionary theory provide a powerful demonstration of the important roll of "chance" in the emergence of complexity and order.

 

Second, there is no target design toward which evolution is somehow striving—evolution has absolutely no foresight or goals (this is easily the single greatest popular misconception), which also means that there is no progressive drive toward increased complexity or intelligence. In fact, there are many examples of simple species evolving from more complex ones. Offspring either survive or they do not. Period. There is no evolutionary "planning," and evolution cannot "see" beyond that one step: the differential survival of characteristics in one generation.

 

that's cold man.

[AtomicCEO]

I think the "true" creationist (as in there was nothing, then 7 days later there was everything) crowd has dwindled mightily due to the advances of science. I'm not a creationist at all in that sense. I do fall in a pretty large group that believes in a superior being.

 

Hmmm. Is that how you define creationism? As someone who believes in 7 day creation as described in Genesis? Wow. That makes a lot of sense.

 

I feel the same way. Az would disagree (shocker). Thews would misunderstand your argument repeatedly.

Edited August 9, 2007 by AtomicCEO

[Azazello1313]

uhh, not really, but since we're on the subject, what is the bible's theory on neanderthals?

not sure how that is relevant to this discussion ...

 

right.

 

ton, i get the sense you don't know jack about the actual theories of actual scientists in this field. you only know what you read in creationist propaganda. that would be like forming an opinion about christianity by consulting only atheists who despise the religion. where you realize it or not, you are presently incapable of approaching this subject with an open mind.

[Hugh B Tool]

what proof is there , conclusive proof , that says otherwise ? nothing conclusive and none will be found

 

 

you sound like Johnny Cochran bro. overwellmingly so there is much more evidence that would make one without total blind faith lean towards evolution

Edited August 9, 2007 by Hugh B Tool

[McNasty]

PS – If you have a soul God exists. Think about it.

 

Prove this.

[Thews40]

Prove this.

Ok... let's just say you have a soul... mmmkay. That would mean that the tangible world you used to exist in has now changed... mmmkay. In that world (dimension), without matter you would have to assume that a supreme being was sorta in charge. Would you disagree?

[AtomicCEO]

PS – If you have a soul God exists. Think about it.

 

Proof of God

[McNasty]

Ok... let's just say you have a soul... mmmkay. That would mean that the tangible world you used to exist in has now changed... mmmkay. In that world (dimension), without matter you would have to assume that a supreme being was sorta in charge. Would you disagree?

 

First off, define "soul".

 

Oh, and James Brown was a bad mother...hush yo mouf..

Edited August 9, 2007 by McNasty

[bushwacked]

i'm not trying to ignore it, i'm wondering if it really does prove evolution.

 

I don't wonder if science proves evolution. I know it doesn't prove evolution.

[bushwacked]

not sure how that is relevant to this discussion ...

 

This was a softball waiting to get hit out of the park, but everyone just let it sail by...Az finally bunted it back to the pitcher.

Edited August 9, 2007 by bushwacked

[bushwacked]

:highfive:

 

those who believe in an evolutionary theory know about as much as those who thought the earth was flat.

 

:highfive:

[tonorator]

right.

 

ton, i get the sense you don't know jack about the actual theories of actual scientists in this field. you only know what you read in creationist propaganda. that would be like forming an opinion about christianity by consulting only atheists who despise the religion. where you realize it or not, you are presently incapable of approaching this subject with an open mind.

 

so you absolutely rule out that there could possibly be any evolutionary propaganda? is it not possible that those who cannot accept the idea of creationism or some other alternative to evolution pursue their research with their evolutionist end in mind?

 

my mind is actually very open on this, trying to consider all possibilities and challening those with seeming closed minds that unless you accept evolution on the basis on shaky data, then you don't know jack. i've read quite a bit on the theories, from fossil records to dna to natural selection, etc., and it's not like they paint a very simple picture that anyone should be able to get.

 

just because different life forms existed at different times does not mean that one came from the other. our present day earth could be the result of several catastrophic events, random or not, that have led us to this point vs. trying to interconnect everying in the one great big bush of life (no offense to w.). for all we really know, we were seeded here by some alien race ...

[cre8tiff]

Roll with it baby. They aren't mutally exclusive. If you embrace the idea of God as a euphamism the force of life itself, in all things and all people, then there is room in there for science. The Native Americans had it right with the idea of a Great Spirit. We "civilized" folks seem to need a written instruction manual to guide our faith.

[TimC]

no, he is a Cowboys fan...

 

Did God ever win 5 Super Bowl trophies? Nope. That proves that in matters of football, the Cowboys are greater than God.....or that God is down there on the same level as the Philadelphia Eagles.

Edited August 9, 2007 by TimC

[AtomicCEO]

First off, define "soul".

 

Deja Vu.

 

The last time this exact same argument came up, my first response was to ask him to define "soul".

 

:highfive:

[McNasty]

Deja Vu.

 

The last time this exact same argument came up, my first response was to ask him to define "soul".

 

:highfive:

 

I don't think there's an answer coming.

 

: on the flip side:

Edited August 9, 2007 by McNasty

[Azazello1313]

so you absolutely rule out that there could possibly be any evolutionary propaganda? is it not possible that those who cannot accept the idea of creationism or some other alternative to evolution pursue their research with their evolutionist end in mind?

 

my mind is actually very open on this, trying to consider all possibilities and challening those with seeming closed minds that unless you accept evolution on the basis on shaky data, then you don't know jack. i've read quite a bit on the theories, from fossil records to dna to natural selection, etc., and it's not like they paint a very simple picture that anyone should be able to get.

 

just because different life forms existed at different times does not mean that one came from the other. our present day earth could be the result of several catastrophic events, random or not, that have led us to this point vs. trying to interconnect everying in the one great big bush of life (no offense to w.). for all we really know, we were seeded here by some alien race ...

 

the theory of evolution didn't come about due to people looking to disprove the bible or any such nonsense. darwin wasn't an atheist, the geologists who started figuring out how old the earth is weren't atheists. they just looked at the world around them and all of the evidence it contains. evolutionary scientists are not on some jihad to destroy christianity. on the few occasions they actually speak out publicly, it is because they are sick of listening to half baked lies about what they do and what their aims are.

 

if you truly have an open mind, i encourage you to spend a bit of time browsing through some of the articles and FAQs at talkorigins.org. i don't think you'll find they're on this great crusade to disprove christianity. you may also find that the data is not nearly as "shaky" as you presume.

[isleseeya]

you sound like Johnny Cochran bro. overwellmingly so there is much more evidence that would make one without total blind faith lean towards evolution

 

Thankfully I don't look like him

 

Hugh my pt is that while science can prove a lot of things it can't prove with 100 percent conclusive proof that we evolved from monkies , etc

 

Yes I am a christian , yes I take the scripture seriously and yes my faith drives me but I don't ignore science ...science is evident every moment of our lives but to me so is God

 

In an earlier thread someone wrote about universe created in 7 days ..here is an example of scripture becuase it says that 1000 years can equal one day for God , pt being that God is not bound by time ..7 days does not mean 168 hrs as see it

 

Bible has some heavy stuff in it and its not something that can be read once superficially ..a deeper understanding andf studyung of it , actually brings deeper meaning to what is written and how it applies even today in our world

 

In the end I can not argue though that faith is not fact and so in this argument I can only state what I believe to be true but can not post a link to conclusively proves it in a scientfic manner ..

 

Edit to add : by the way OJ was guilty...glove or no glove fitting

Edited August 9, 2007 by isleseeya

[DemonKnight]

going from generation to generation, there is no fossil evidence of evolution. no real connection can be made. if what you say is true, we should be able to trace it back step by step. we can't even come close.

 

If we had every skeleton of every animal to walk the earth we could prove beyond a doubt that evolution is a natural fact. Lacking that it will remain the best possible theory we have to describe how we naturally came to be.

[DemonKnight]

I think that it is problematic trying to make God fit within the confines of human actions. Evolution could be God's method of creating the world. It isn't that hard to believe the science and still maintain faith. THe religous proletariat would have folks believe the words as written, despite the fact the men who wrote them couldn't have known what the heck "chromosomes" or "genes" were. The Bible was written for a technologically challenged generation of men, and taking it too literally cheapens the message of the God, IMHO.

 

Bingo.

[tonorator]

the theory of evolution didn't come about due to people looking to disprove the bible or any such nonsense. darwin wasn't an atheist, the geologists who started figuring out how old the earth is weren't atheists. they just looked at the world around them and all of the evidence it contains. evolutionary scientists are not on some jihad to destroy christianity. on the few occasions they actually speak out publicly, it is because they are sick of listening to half baked lies about what they do and what their aims are.

 

if you truly have an open mind, i encourage you to spend a bit of time browsing through some of the articles and FAQs at talkorigins.org. i don't think you'll find they're on this great crusade to disprove christianity. you may also find that the data is not nearly as "shaky" as you presume.

 

that's a good site and i get your point. i'm not so much talking jihad or any overt crusade to disprove creationism or christianity. it's not recognized or stated as an objective, but yet it is in there by default. we are bound by the scientific method to understand what is happening around us and to try and determine how we got here. from everything we understand today, matter cannot be created from nothing, but yet we know we are here somehow. so right off the bat, the scientific method could discount the supernatural option because it cannot be observed or verified. since it cannot be, then you could start all of your research under the presumption that creationism is not an option. this really isn't anyone's fault, it's just how it is.

 

so when you execute the scientific method potentially bound by presumptions, you end up with theories that support those presumptions.

 

it would be interesting to start with the presumption that we were created by an intelligent designer, and then apply the scientific method to better understand how we were designed and why. there is mind boggling precision to this world, our galaxy, our universe, our bodies, etc., and by some magnificent, unexplainable reason, it all continue to operate in concert with each other to provide the ideal environment for us to survive. all of the power of the scientific method could then be used to explain why this is ... you could see that different species have different DNA encoding which explains each of their unique traits and characteristics. you could dig into fossil evidence and show how all of these species have existed over time by assembling their complete skeletal remains. you would find that we really do not have concrete evidence of any transitory type of birdmen, or lizardmen, or lizardapes, or even conclusive evidence of ape-men. if your presumption was that all species were created individually and uniquely, then you would strive to classify them individually vs. strive to imply that one is a direct derivation of the other.

 

seriously, you have a big, evolved brain az (that is a compliment). help me with this ... is this possible at all? is there some iota of a chance that since the scientific community largely shares the presumption that creationism is equivalent to a fairy tale that it's possible that it shapes and guides their findings?

[wiegie]

the geologists who started figuring out how old the earth is weren't atheists. they just looked at the world around them and all of the evidence it contains. evolutionary scientists are not on some jihad to destroy christianity.

The Seashell on the Mountaintop: A Story of Science Sainthood and the Humble Genius Who Discovered a New History of the Earth is an interesting book about one such geologist.

[billay]

that's a good site and i get your point. i'm not so much talking jihad or any overt crusade to disprove creationism or christianity. it's not recognized or stated as an objective, but yet it is in there by default. we are bound by the scientific method to understand what is happening around us and to try and determine how we got here. from everything we understand today, matter cannot be created from nothing, but yet we know we are here somehow. so right off the bat, the scientific method could discount the supernatural option because it cannot be observed or verified. since it cannot be, then you could start all of your research under the presumption that creationism is not an option. this really isn't anyone's fault, it's just how it is.

 

so when you execute the scientific method potentially bound by presumptions, you end up with theories that support those presumptions.

 

it would be interesting to start with the presumption that we were created by an intelligent designer, and then apply the scientific method to better understand how we were designed and why. there is mind boggling precision to this world, our galaxy, our universe, our bodies, etc., and by some magnificent, unexplainable reason, it all continue to operate in concert with each other to provide the ideal environment for us to survive. all of the power of the scientific method could then be used to explain why this is ... you could see that different species have different DNA encoding which explains each of their unique traits and characteristics. you could dig into fossil evidence and show how all of these species have existed over time by assembling their complete skeletal remains. you would find that we really do not have concrete evidence of any transitory type of birdmen, or lizardmen, or lizardapes, or even conclusive evidence of ape-men. if your presumption was that all species were created individually and uniquely, then you would strive to classify them individually vs. strive to imply that one is a direct derivation of the other.

 

seriously, you have a big, evolved brain az (that is a compliment). help me with this ... is this possible at all? is there some iota of a chance that since the scientific community largely shares the presumption that creationism is equivalent to a fairy tale that it's possible that it shapes and guides their findings?

If you want to come at it from that angle ton, this might be a good place to start. Anthropic Principles

Most arguments for intelligent design are borne out of various anthropic principles, but their MO is not to push a deity, but to enphasize the statistical unliklihood in the universe unfolding in such a way as to produce us. (intelligent life)

 

I think it's far more likely that the creationist/intelligent design community would try and make people of faith beilieve that science is out to undermine their religion than it is that scientists are bringing such grand presuppositions into their work. While it's certainly not a flawless process, the whole pupose of science is to eliminate assumptions and only derive knowledge from that which can be observed, proven and predicted.

Edited August 9, 2007 by billay

[Thews40]

I don't think there's an answer coming.

 

: on the flip side:

Your soul is what's let over after you're dead. If you believe it's nothing, then you don't believe you have a soul.

 

If we had every skeleton of every animal to walk the earth we could prove beyond a doubt that evolution is a natural fact. Lacking that it will remain the best possible theory we have to describe how we naturally came to be.

This thought process defines a lot of the arguments in here. Take the data you have, and find the most plausible answer. To say that a random mixing of chemicals created a life form so complex it eventually evolved into humans, is really just assuming it’s the only possible scenario that can be derived based on the existing data. For the record, it’s not a fact and IMO highly improbable, but it is variable #2 in the argument (variable #1 would be where the chemicals came from).

 

To summarize the high points of the argument, the focus keeps coming back to what can and can’t be proven. Regardless of the end result, the full extent of the question (having answers for all the variables) must be answered to make a foundation in logic. The foundation in logic places either a belief in God for the creation of the universe, or a belief in nothing turning into something and eventually “creating” us by means of chemical happenstance. There’s faith in either opinion, though the faith in God is defined, the faith in a theory that can explain the infinite variables can be put on the shelf for further scientific research. A conclusive answer cannot be reached, as time an anti-matter are both infinite variables. When forming a logical base of opinion, one answer is God did it, and the other answer is "I don't know, but we're working on it." One logical base answers the question regarding the infinite variables (and therefore forms its base in logic) and the other ignores it, having no foundation in its logical base other than to assume it will be answered later.

 

Side note – The debate usually (and is now) introducing Christianity as the “God” variable. “God” can be defined by whatever the individual interprets as an entity, but steering the conversation towards Christianity will ultimately introduce the secondary agenda of debating left vs. right wing politics. For argument’s sake, I contend that God is defined only as an entity.

 

PS – You have a finite thought process and cannot now, nor ever will be able to put time or anti-matter into a factually proven argument as both are infinite. The scientific method being used as the base of the argument is the same variable that will ultimately negate the answer being proven as factual, which is why the question keeps being defined on what’s tangible. How the matter came to be is a variable and has weight in answering the question, and if you ignore it because it cannot be proven/theorized then the opinion’s base in logic becomes distorted. Bottom line… you either believe that a higher entity (God) created the universe, or you believe that science will someday theorize an answer to an infinite question that cannot be proven.