«

[Iron_Scarecrow]

Well that is all well and good, but you do kind of make it sound like science is all one big theory and there's no proof behind anything.

[Hkizzle]

Mm, Dreadlord.........

Back to the topic.

1) Evolution is not a religion. It is a scientific theory as previously explained. This is the same as the millions of other scientific theories. For example, the theory of combustion is that a fuel and gas will ignite when enough energy (activation energy) is applied.
You don't equate to your faith in gasoline burning if you light it with an open flame as a religion. But I guess you do need faith in everything.

At the very least. I am sure no one in this forum would have the guts to smoke a cigarette if they were covered from head to toe in gasoline. So it is safe to assume that we all have faith in the theory of combustion. Enough at least, not to test our faith in it!

2) Most religious people do not question the millions of other scientific theories out there. But evolution is disputed because it is in dispute with the bible, or at least....genesis.

3) Almost all such forum discussions are based on Christianity vs evolution. I suppose this is because most forums I've been to have users based in countries where christianity has the most influence.
But evolution actually conflicts with all the major religions.

4) Not many people bring this up. But all the major religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are all in conflict with one another. So if the basis of one religion is correct, the other ones must be wrong in part or in whole.

5) So if evolution is not meant to be taught in schools despite it being a scientific theory like the rest. Then what do you teach in a school with kids of different religious backgrounds?

:blink:

[Hkizzle]

One last thing and then I'll call it quits because these threads go on forever as they are based on opinion. Evolution is testable these days because of advances in genetics. The very discovery of mutation in genes goes a huge way to explain evolution. Prior to discovery of mutations in genes, Darwin's idea small differences and changes in population adding up over generations could not be proven.

Of course, what you do in the lab with regard to selective breeding or manipulation of genes is still pretty simple due to time constraints.

My personal belief is that evolution as we know it is accurate. This is because if you think about it, evolution is probably the most incredible and ingenious way for life to reproduce.
If our genetic data does not mutate, then as the environment changes, and it does. Then pre-designed species will die out. Mutation of genes allows for survival of the fittest, and allows life to constantly adapt to changes by preserving genes that suited the environment.

If I was creating life, there is no way I could have designed a better mechanism. Life through evolution means life will survive not in a static environment, but over time in harsh environments from deserts to the arctic.

I also believe in God, because I believe there is more to life than just existence, and we live in a universe with amazingly orderly sets of rules, and evolution is one of God's amazing ideas.

Just happens that I do not accept the Christian version of events. Nor other major religions for that matter, simply because they conflict with one another, and if one is right then all others are wrong. But still, we should hold respect for all ideas and religions, because as someone correctly points out......nothing is definite. An absolute would not require faith!

Good books to read for those that want to understand more about evolution but do not want to study a full degree:

The Selfish Gene

The Blind Watchmaker

Great points that I learnt from these books that explain a lot of issues I did not understand before. Such as how evolution explain behaviour and bridges and gaps in evolution.

My professor in university once explained the "eye" arguement, where people say it is impossible for an eye to evolve due to its complexity. You have to explain it in stages. The most simplistic "eyes" in nature are not real eyes but organisms that are sensitive to light. Photosensitive areas can then develop into more complex organs. Remember that we are talking about millions of generations.

Anyway, good books for those that have an interest in that sort of thing. That concludes my ideas on this topic, back to work and then gaming when I get home!

[Marek]

Some very very good and interesting points...

thanks for the amunition...

[Reup]

Yes, Everyone should read Dawkins' books, although ' The selfish gene' is a bit outdated. Also read other neo-darwinists like Stephen J. Gould to put Dawkins a bit in perspective. These books provide an excellent popular scientific introduction to the (often misunderstood) theories of Darwin AND are entertaining to read. Maybe people should also read (parts of) the bible. The first books are really pretty readable.
I should point out that these books are popular science (except the bible off course) in the sense that they do not provide any real scientific data such as statistics, formulas and such, but try to shed some light on the work that is being done in 'real' science. This means that sometimes ther authors tend to philosophy a bit and even jump to conclusions. So when reading for instance 'The Selfish Gene' read the footnotes in which Dawkins frequently has to correct his earlier (too bold) statements, bases upon newer research!

Btw. Very well put Hkizzle. Although I do not agree with you on your statement that God created evolution But this does not mean we can't have a discussion about this in a civilised way k:

[Sly]

My .02, then I'll shut up

A scientific theory is a careful attempt to explain certain observable facts of nature by means of experiments [Empirical (experimental) Science].

1) It must first be observable- The most important requirement of empirical science is that any object or phenomenon we wish to study must first be observable. While we may assume the existence of events not witnessed by human observers, such events are not suited to study by empirical science.

2) It must be repeatable- Unique and unrepeatable events, such as the Babylonian Empire, are the subject of history, not empirical science.

3) It must be testable- we must be able to conceive of an experiment that could refute our theory if it were wrong.

A scientific fact is an observable natural occurrence

A scientific theory is an attempt to explain how a natural occurrence works

A scientific law is a mathematical description of a natural occurrence.

Consider the well-known phenomenon of gravity.

1) First, there is a fact of gravity. While we cannot actually see gravitational force itself, we do observe the effects of this force every time we drop something.

2) Second, there is also a theory of gravity that addresses the question of how this force we call gravity really works. While we don't know how gravity works, there are theories that attempt to explain it.

3) Finally, there is the well-known law of gravity. This law, first formulated by Isaac Newton, is a mathematical equation that shows a relationship between mass, distance and gravitational force.

If one were to propose an explanation for an event in such a way that no one could conceive of any way to test or refute it, it wouldn't be a theory at all, but rather a belief. Beliefs, of course, are not necessarily wrong; they just aren't well suited to study by empirical science.

Evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to be observable in the lifetime of human observers. The offspring of most living organisms, for example, are said to remain largely unchanged for tens of thousands, or even millions, of years.

What exactly is the "observable fact" of evolution? First you should be aware that evolutionists recognize two types of evolution:

Microevolution, which is observable, and macroevolution, which isn't.

So called "microevolution" is a process of limited variation among the individuals of a given species that produces the sort of variety we observe among dogs. This is a fact. Remember, a scientific fact is an observable natural occurrence.

Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a hypothetical process of unlimited variation that evolutionists believe transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally new kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this transformation. Even on the genetic level it has been observed and tested that no natural occurring mutation increases the genetic complexity of any living organism. There is no observable natural occurrence of macroevolution. So how can you have a theory about a natural occurrence that doesn’t occur and call it empirical science?

The very name "microevolution" is intended to imply that it is this kind of variation that accumulates to produce macroevolution. Thus, an observable phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable phenomenon for which there is no evidence, and then the latter is declared to be a "fact" on the strength of the former.

In conclusion, macroevolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory.

Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator.

Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man. Special creation is accepted with faith by those who believe that the Bible is the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator whose Word is more reliable than the speculations of men.

[Havell]

Macroevolution (which is a term I haven't heard anyone use except you) cannot be seen first hand but it can be observed with fossiol records, the further down you dig, the older the fossils become, and you can trace lines of evolution as they become less complex futher back in time.

[Sly]

Originally posted by R Havell@Mar 30 2005, 05:05 PM
Macroevolution (which is a term I haven't heard anyone use except you)

Well I tried to stay shutted up LOL No problem though...

Just FYI, it's been around for 78 years. k: (I didn't make it up )

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist.

[Yobor]

Reconcile?

[Hkizzle]

:blink:

Sly, did you write this? This one has some good points.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml

But, genetic data can be added. Insertion and duplication of genetic data is pretty simple genetics. So I am not sure why creationists argue that no genetic data can be added. :blink: This is the first time I've heard this arguement.

Sly, I disagree with you. Molecular genetics has been the testing ground for evolution. If we could not detonate a nuclear bomb, we can still show that we'll get a hell of a bang as long as we prove that nuclear fission or fussion is possible.

Here's a brief explaination of insertion, duplication and deletion. Miss out the review at the top, unreadable. Go to mutations.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biolo...o131_Mutate.pdf

With regard to fossil records, yes, that's yet another area where creationists and evolutionists argue. I personally believe we have enough fossil records to show progression, such as in horses.
There are of course gaps which creationists argue.

One thing is sure though. If the earth was 6,000 years old. Then some time between 6,000 years ago and today, the dinosaurs roamed for a significant amount of time, and since they covered the globe, every civilisation would have had to have co-existed with them.
Ancient records from the Egyptians, Chinese, Aztecs, etc would have been talking about dinosaurs all day long.

Certainly, if I was chased by a T.Rex the other week. I would remember to record that whether in normal or religious text! :help: