Defender wrote:Whether it's the beginning of life or the beginning of the universe, or the evolution of either one of these, whatever, to me it's all the same thing: God is not responsible; it's all a bunch of accidents. At least a few on here have been gracious enough to admit neither opinion can be proved. Here's my problem with evolution: It's a theory, far from a scientific fact.
Thanks for making yourself look foolish by putting forward the flawed semantic argument that because scientific ideas are expressed as theories, they are somehow inferior. There is no such thing, technically speaking, as a scientific fact. All we have are theories that fit the evidence and have not been disproven by other observations.
Quote:Factual Science is: observe data and evidence, form conclusions. With evolution, a conclusion was made, and scientists now spend their time trying to find the evidence. (And yes, the majority of scientists are evolutionists. [And they still can't prove anything] The institution of science, if compared to a country, would not resemble a free democratic society, but a dictatorship. Conform, don't introduce new ideas, stick to the plan.)
I can't help but point out the irony here. Science is constantly changing to become more accurate as new information comes to light. Further, the competitive nature of scientific research ensures that people with new breakthrough ideas (that are supported by evidence) are encouraged.
On the other hand, religion is, by definition, a pre-formed conclusion. A pre-formed conclusion that is riddled with so many gaping flaws and inconsistancies that it only endures by ignoring the facts, twisting the truth, and relying on the ignorance of its followers.
Further, evolution - unlike religion -
is based on "observing data and evidence, forming conclusions." Darwin did exactly that with his observations on the Galapagos islands. Saying that evolution was simply a foregone conclusion may be convenient to you, but it doesn't make it true.
Quote:Evolution is a theory that, every time faced with non-conforming facts produces more and more theories, more and more conjectures, hypotheses, guesses, and on and on and on and on. (Evolution reminds me of a little white lie I once told. I thought that would be the end of it. Instead it led to another [larger], and another, and another, etc.)
Most, if not all, scientific theories are gradually refined to closer resemble the truth as time goes on. Darwin provided us with a basic outline and scientists have been filling in the gaps ever since. This is not a knock against evolution any more than it is a knock against
every scientific theory in existence from gravity to plate tectonics.
For example, look at the ways our views of the solar system have changed. From the religious description, to Copernicus, to Galileo. Each model was based on evidence, which was then modified with the advent of new evidence. Would you dismiss helio-centrism because it is based on a now debunked theory? Because, that is exactly what you are proposing.
No, that is not what the "whole theory [is] based on." Evolution is based on a wide range of evidence, not just the position of fossils in the Earth.
The fact is, almost all fossils are found withen the expected sediment layer. Of course,
some fossils are found in other layers of sediment. But this means nothing. In fact, it would be rather astounding if every fossil in the world, after going through millions of years of plate shifts and other geologic activity, was found in exactly the place we expected it to be. So, the fact that a few fossils are found out of place is both expected and irrelevelent.
Also, it was well known that fossils were found in certain assemblages before Darwin ever thought up evolution. Geologists observed this as far back as the 1600's. Certain groupings of fossils were always found below other groupings. This is true all accross the globe.
Further, your implied premise that a fossils location is the only way to establish its date is wrong. Even when fossils are found in mismatching sediment layers, thier dates can be established using other methods (potassium/argon for the fossils and carbon for the sediment.)
Scientists have yet to find any fossil anywhere that doesn't conform to the evolutionary model, for example a complex organism from the Tertiary period dated and found to exist in the same time as the Cambrian period. Or an amino acid driving a Ferrari, for that matter. No such fossil has been found, or will ever be found, because it cannot exist.
Quote:Here's a quote from someone earlier: "The fact is - there is a wealth of evidence supporting evolution and none disproving it", a crafty statement containing the words Fact, Evidence, and Evolution. It should read "
a wealth of evidence interpreted to support the theory of evolution."
Semantic bulls
hit which applies equally to any scientific theory.
Quote: However, it is a true statement (as implied), but so are all of the following:
- There's a wealth of evidence supporting creation and none disproving it.
Pray tell, what evidence supporting creationism?
Quote:- The fact is - there's no evidence that proves evolution.
Micro-evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Although the argument for macro-evolution is less solid right now, any rational person will recognize it is almost a certainty given the current evidence.
I would hazard to say that the only reason macro-evolution isn't considered a fact is that it contradicts religion, and therefore, will take much longer to be recognized than it should.......as was the case with the date of the Earth (only accepted long after it was establsihed), heliocentrism (only accepted centuries after it was proven), and numerous other proven facts that are pushed aside because they come into conflict with religious stupidity.
Quote:- The fact is - there's no evidence that disproves creation.
The act of creation itself can be niether proven nor disproven.
However, the numerous religious models of creation have been disproven over and over again throughout history. Also, note that evolution
does not try to explain creation, it only concerns itself with what happened
after the first organism.
The field that involves creation is called abiogenises, and it has yielded no firm results.
Quote:Man has been around for millions (no I'm not kidding, according to evolutionary theory) of years, yet a fact which no one can contend is: civilization sprang up instantly (less than 10,000 years ago). That is a fact. The genius of these civilizations, the great pyramids and the Mayan calendar system, are only rivaled (I use this term loosely considering the accumulation of knowledge and technology at our fingertips) in the last century.
Heh.
The events that led up to the birth of civilization have been well documented. It began after the last ice age. Agriculure sprung up in a few select areas where plants were domesticable - most notably, the Fertile Crescent (40% of world food production still invloves plants domesticated in that area.) Food production led to increased population density. A population explosion ensued because sedentary farmers were able to support more children. This led to the need to form the first governments, which lead to the formation of armies and territories. The rise of political organization required people to eventualy develop sophisticated methods of communication (ie-writting and math.) Etc, etc, etc.
Further, this sudden rise had
nothing to do with evolution - there was no sudden change in human biology that precipitated it. Rather, as described above, it was sparked by an inevitable discovery (agriculture) which led to a series of events culminating in civilization.
All of this is neatly tucked away withen the confines of logic and history, and in no way is evidence of divine inspiration in humanities rise to civilization.
Quote:Of the majority of evolutionists I'm convinced of one thing: If confronted by the direct audible voice of God they would squeeze their hands tightly over their ears while loudly chanting, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA
..
Oh, the irony.
....you mean, kind of like all the religious nutjobs did when confronted with heliocentrism, the age of the Earth, the fact that there was no world shattering flood, and in more modern times, evolution. Are you talking about that kind of hard-headed ignorance?
Please.
Quote:Here's another wonderful thing about the hypothesis of evolution: where does it lead? You start with a single cell, billions of years of radiation-induced-mutations-and-sheer-chance later you have, humans. Eventually the evolution of our brains and abilities will allow us to control the weather; technology will have us communicating telepathically with anyone in the world by means of a miniature brain implant (maybe not an implant, just another evolved advantage); we'll be flying around in space, traveling to other solar systems, eventually to other galaxies - and this is all very soon according to the evolutionary clock. And of course, the natural course of evolution will have us traveling through and communicating across the entire universe; technological and medicinal advancements will have us living for eons; we'll be, hey, like Gods. How wonderful! Man will obviously be able to create life by this time. So we'll be able to create any kind of life we want, plop it right down on some planet and watch it grow and evolve and ponder its existence; and eventually watch it sit around and debate its origins across some electrical or fiber optic media. (Ah, to be your own favorite comedian!)
You started off making sense and ended in unsupported idiocy.
"I don't like the idea of evolution because it may or may not have some wierd implications, therefore, it is false."
I don't understand what you are saying here. Sorry.
Quote:Here's a really good one: A global flood would fully explain the evolutionary-geological column (fossils and sediment layers), yet is fully rejected. Well, in Darwin's time uniformitarianism is the default evolutionist's position - a position which denies catastrophes of any kind. Instead, Darwin's claim is that everything evolved by slow, very slow, yet steady and consistent changes over time. A position later changed as evolutionists now accept catastrophes such as localized flooding, earthquakes, meteorites, etc. Yet a global flood is denied, even though there is more than enough water contained in earth's atmosphere and surface to flood the planet.
First of all, it is doubtfull that there is "more than enough water contained in the Earths atmosphere and surface to flood the planet." Even if we ignore that, your idea is rife with utter stupidity.
Secondly, every shred of evidence from every scientific field available contradicts your theory and none supports it. To accept this retarded theory is to shun science, logic, and rationality itself.
If your idea is that all of the fossilzed creatures we find were wiped out by a pre-historic flood, I have a few more objections to your delusion below.
Third, it would not account for the order of fossils found in the Earth. Ie- more complex organisms found above less complex organisms. Explain how "it would fully explain the evolutionary-geological column."
Fourth, how would all the trilobites, wooly mammoths, marine creatures, and early humans survive withen the same ecosystem at the same time?
Fifth, explain how this flood managed to "drown" all of the marine creatures we find fossils of. Thanks.
HA HA HA HA HA!
The funny thing here is that
the scientific knowledge (geology) that scientists use to hypothosize that there was once water on Mars is the same science that you dismiss to allow for your theory of a catastrophic flood.
So, in other words, like most religious nutbars, you believe in science when it suits you, ignore science when it doesn't, and dismiss science when it contradicts you. Very convenient. But also incredibly moronic.
And this is all ignoring the fact that the possibility of water on mars has nothing at all to do with the possibility of a planet-wide pre-historic flood on Earth. Nothing.
Quote:In case you want to nip-pick, dissect and attack everything I've said, feel free. Call me names, insult my intelligence (If I had any [just get that started for you there]), blah, blah, blah.
You insult your own intelligence, constantly. I don't need to do that for you.
It is the hieght of hubris to suggest that you have closed the book on evolution ON AN INTERNET DISCUSSION BOARD. Especially so when you dismiss people who object with one-line answers, attacks on grammer, and sarcastic disdain.
You are free to believe that a magical, egotistical, father-figure created humanity, gave us brains as receptacles for his greatness, sent us scurrying about to die in fires and earthquakes, then sent his son to Earth, tricked the Romans into killing him, but not really, and hates gays. But that doesn't make your belief a rational one.
It is true that science has not yet filled in every line of the evolutionary narrative. But this is not a knock against it. There are almost no things that science has completely explained line-by-line. This is one of its selling points, in my mind. However, religion is, by definition, a complete narrative, and one that has been knocked down so many times on so many levels that it is no longer worth repeating.
