hephzibah wrote:Ok, fair enough. Are any of these bones and fossils of a human in the midst of evolving?
It doesn't work that way.
That's like asking if there are any bones that show a father evolving into his son.
Well that's because we know that couldn't happen don't we? It seems if it is said that there is tangible proof of such things, there actually ought to be. Don't you think?
The link just went to google's home page.
hephzibah wrote:littlek wrote:Hez, science is a growing dynamic field. I don't doubt we will figure it all out some day - through science.
I do believe science is growing. I am not so certain all things will be explained by it though.
So what? No one rational claims to have all the answers. Some of the bobble-thumpers do, but they aren't being rational. When cornered, they say "It's god's will." When little babies die because their parents abuse or neglect them, it's god's will. When rich fat cats who batten on the poor to make their fortune live well and escape all punishment, it's god's will. When anyone questions the sense of justice or proportion of said diety, it's "god moves in mysterious ways." That is hardly having all the answers, although it is often the very epitome of smugness.
What's so important, or special, about having all the answers?
Their ability to rationalize away common sense and logic should reveal why their position has very little credibility.
Setanta wrote:hephzibah wrote:littlek wrote:Hez, science is a growing dynamic field. I don't doubt we will figure it all out some day - through science.
I do believe science is growing. I am not so certain all things will be explained by it though.
So what? No one rational claims to have all the answers. Some of the bobble-thumpers do, but they aren't being rational. When cornered, they say "It's god's will." When little babies die because their parents abuse or neglect them, it's god's will. When rich fat cats who batten on the poor to make their fortune live well and escape all punishment, it's god's will. When anyone questions the sense of justice or proportion of said diety, it's "god moves in mysterious ways."
What's so important, or special, about having all the answers?
Very good point. Though there are those who claim to be rational and actually believe they do have all the answers. Your statements about people rationalizing these things as "Gods will" are the perfect example of it. Shoot... I bet I've done that before. What's is so important about it Setanta? I was just making a follow up statement to littlek. I wasn't challenging what she said. Just merely stating that at this point I doubt science will be able to explain everything. Though I wouldn't be upset if it somehow could in my lifetime anyway. However, I thought that debating was about providing a burden of proof for your claims? If someone is going to claim their is tangible proof of evolution being truth I see nothing wrong with asking to see that proof.
hephzibah
Quote:Ok, fair enough. So then what makes the theory's on evolution so much more reliable than the theory's on religion?
The answer given was tangible proof. Allow me to expand on that.
Creationism and ID say all animals that ever existed were created at one time by God.
Evolution says they evolved at different periods of time.
If Creationism is correct we should find in the fossil record a flotsam and jetsam of fossils. Dinosaurs mixed with humans mixed with older Permian age animals. But we don't find that. Instead we find fossil confined to their particular age group. Dinosaurs are found in the Age of Dinosaurs group and humans are found in the much later Pleistocene Age. Every fossil find there is supports evolution because every fossil is found in its proper time slot.
Quote:Hmm... interesting. And science has physical proof of these ancestors?
Yes and just recently a new find was
announced that some believe may be the link between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens.
If your interested in seeing our ancestors here is a good place to
start.
One thing to note here. No fossils of dinosaurs or Permian Age animals were found with our human ancestors. But by what Creationist say they should be.
To set up a standard such as "I doubt science will be able to explain everything" is tantamount to implying, "god knows all and can explain all." "God" is a fictional character, unless anybody can prove his existence. In logic, trying to prove a negative with a negative doesn't work too well.
Quote:Yeah, I can see that. But you yourself said that there are many things in science that are still unknown. Granted I'm not saying, "oooh it MUST be God." I'm just saying, if science can't explain it then one must wonder what is it then?...
The nice thing about science vs. creationism is science admits it doesn't know it all. Creationist say the Bible is the answer. Only research that comfirms the Bible is worthy of consideration.
In science when a discovery is made and new knowledge is added to our data base we find we end up asking more questions. That's the nature of the human mind, to ask, seek and learn.
For example, if we discover dinosaur bones we ask, 'are they reptile or mammal?' If we find eggs in a nest we assume they are reptile or bird-like. Then we ask, 'did they live in herds or solitary?' We find a large number of egg nest in one area so we conclude they were herd-like. They were also vegetarians. What about the predators? What were their nest like? Were they solitary? What was the color of their skin? Why did they have certain anatomical features? And so on and so on. No matter what you find the questions never stop. You never know it all. There is always something new to discover and learn.
So if science can't explain something today, be patient; they may tomorrow.
hephzibah wrote:Very good point. Though there are those who claim to be rational and actually believe they do have all the answers. Your statements about people rationalizing these things as "Gods will" are the perfect example of it. Shoot... I bet I've done that before. What's is so important about it Setanta? I was just making a follow up statement to littlek. I wasn't challenging what she said. Just merely stating that at this point I doubt science will be able to explain everything. Though I wouldn't be upset if it somehow could in my lifetime anyway. However, I thought that debating was about providing a burden of proof for your claims? If someone is going to claim their is tangible proof of evolution being truth I see nothing wrong with asking to see that proof.
Miss Eppie, following are the first and second posts in this thread, which i invite you to notice is in the Spirituality and Religion forum, not the Science and Mathematics forum:
vol_fan06 wrote:What makes Evolution so believable. Just because a bunch of scientists tell you it is. It is a theory, an idea, a guess. Why?
vol_fan06 wrote:I seem to find a lot more truth from the Bible and not what a bunch of scientists tell me. come on seriously how believable is all the "scientific" stuff they say is right. a monkey turning in to a man? A big bang and the world was formed? How did the stuff that collided get formed?
So, what you have here is a joker who came here with a chip on his shoulder, prepared not to believe a theory of evolution, because he prefers to believe religious dogma. Fine so far, but we have had more than 800 pages of providing evidence for a theory of evolution, and jokers come here, and make the same silly arguments again and again. It gets rather tiresome to answer the same arguments again and again, especially as most of them are canards based upon a faulty understanding, or a willfully disingenuous statement which is in fact untrue.
So, there are more than eight hundred pages for you to read before you make the claim that no one has offered any tangible evidence for a theory of evolution. There are a great many very informative answers in this thread by knowledgable people. There is also a wealth of claptrap like those first two posts--people with a religious agenda and a chip on their shoulder, who are unwilling to learn, or accept correction of their ignorance or false statements, whose only purpose is to denounce what they see as a competing religious doctrine.
Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution to Fundamentalists
SCIENCE JOURNAL
By SHARON BEGLEY, Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2004; Page A15 original
Professional danger comes in many flavors, and while Richard Colling doesn't jump into forest fires or test experimental jets for a living, he does do the academic's equivalent: He teaches biology and evolution at a fundamentalist Christian college.
At Olivet Nazarene University in Bourbonnais, Ill., he says, "as soon as you mention evolution in anything louder than a whisper, you have people who aren't very happy." And within the larger conservative-Christian community, he adds, "I've been called some interesting names."
But those experiences haven't stopped Prof. Colling -- who received a Ph.D. in microbiology, chairs the biology department at Olivet Nazarene and is himself a devout conservative Christian -- from coming out swinging. In his new book, "Random Designer," he writes: "It pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods" when they say evolutionary theory is "in crisis" and claim that there is widespread skepticism about it among scientists. "Such statements are blatantly untrue," he argues; "evolution has stood the test of time and considerable scrutiny."
His is hardly the standard scientific defense of Darwin, however. His central claim is that both the origin of life from a primordial goo of nonliving chemicals, and the evolution of species according to the processes of random mutation and natural selection, are "fully compatible with the available scientific evidence and also contemporary religious beliefs." In addition, as he bluntly told me, "denying science makes us [Conservative Christians] look stupid."
Prof. Colling is one of a small number of conservative Christian scholars who are trying to convince biblical literalists that Darwin's theory of evolution is no more the work of the devil than is Newton's theory of gravity. They haven't picked an easy time to enter the fray. Evolution is under assault from Georgia to Pennsylvania and from Kansas to Wisconsin, with schools ordering science teachers to raise questions about its validity and, in some cases, teach "intelligent design," which asserts that only a supernatural tinkerer could have produced such coups as the human eye. According to a Gallup poll released last month, only one-third of Americans regard Darwin's theory of evolution as well supported by empirical evidence; 45% believe God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago.
Usually, the defense of evolution comes from scientists and those trying to maintain the separation of church and state. But Prof. Colling has another motivation. "People should not feel they have to deny reality in order to experience their faith," he says. He therefore offers a rendering of evolution fully compatible with faith, including his own. The Church of the Nazarene, which runs his university, "believes in the biblical account of creation," explains its manual. "We oppose a godless interpretation of the evolutionary hypothesis."
It's a small opening, but Prof. Colling took it. He finds a place for God in evolution by positing a "random designer" who harnesses the laws of nature he created. "What the designer designed is the random-design process," or Darwinian evolution, Prof. Colling says. "God devised these natural laws, and uses evolution to accomplish his goals." God is not in there with a divine screwdriver and spare parts every time a new species or a wondrous biological structure appears.
Unlike those who see evolution as an assault on faith, Prof. Colling finds it strengthens his own. "A God who can harness the laws of randomness and chaos, and create beauty and wonder and all of these marvelous structures, is a lot more creative than fundamentalists give him credit for," he told me. Creating the laws of physics and chemistry that, over the eons, coaxed life from nonliving molecules is something he finds just as awe inspiring as the idea that God instantly and supernaturally created life from nonlife.
Prof. Colling reserves some of his sharpest barbs for intelligent design, the idea that the intricate structures and processes in the living world -- from exquisitely engineered flagella that propel bacteria to the marvels of the human immune system -- can't be the work of random chance and natural selection. Intelligent-design advocates look at these sophisticated components of living things, can't imagine how evolution could have produced them, and conclude that only God could have.
That makes Prof. Colling see red. "When Christians insert God into the gaps that science cannot explain -- in this case how wondrous structures and forms of life came to be -- they set themselves up for failure and even ridicule," he told me. "Soon -- and it's already happening with the flagellum -- science is going to come along and explain" how a seemingly miraculous bit of biological engineering in fact could have evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. And that will leave intelligent design backed into an ever-shrinking corner.
It won't be easy to persuade conservative Christians of this; at least half of them believe that the six-day creation story of Genesis is the literal truth. But Prof. Colling intends to try. Of course, if it gets too tough, there's always fire jumping.
Creationism-the dumbing down of America.
No child left behind obviously means an exception on this particular science and because all the supporting sciences that prove evolution are implicated, students should be deprived of those also. It's not necessary to give up any spirituality no matter what source it comes from -- there is an intellectual spirituality as well as emotional, a feeling that one is a part of their family, a part of their milieu of friends and a part of the world (no matter how small). It's part of emotional intelligence. To summarily dismiss an entire science just so one can feel comfortable in their faith is regretful and unnecessary.
hephzibah wrote:Well that's because we know that couldn't happen don't we?
Yes, and what you stated couldn't happen either. That was exactly my point.
hephzibah wrote:It seems if it is said that there is tangible proof of such things, there actually ought to be.
Tangible proof of what, something which nobody even claims ever happens?
What the heck are you asking for?
Setanta wrote:So, what you have here is a joker who came here with a chip on his shoulder, prepared not to believe a theory of evolution, because he prefers to believe religious dogma. Fine so far, but we have had more than 800 pages of providing evidence for a theory of evolution, and jokers come here, and make the same silly arguments again and again.
Fair enough. I, for one, have presented no argument here except that I think the theory is bologna based on the knowledge I do have of it. Now, if you were to say that to me about the bible and my answer was, "Go read the bible why don't you?", or "Why don't you just read 800 pgs of whatever this is and find out for yourself." rather than giving you any sort of answer what would you think? I think if people don't answer they are of the same opinion as you stated below:
Quote: It gets rather tiresome to answer the same arguments again and again, especially as most of them are canards based upon a faulty understanding, or a willfully disingenuous statement which is in fact untrue.
And that's totally acceptable. I'm sorry that you are tired of answering the same questions over and over. I'm not asking for answers from anyone who doesn't want to answer, and if they get tired of answering they are more than welcome to leave the discussion. I do appreciate that there are those who are willing to talk to me about this. I am merely asking questions.
Quote:So, there are more than eight hundred pages for you to read before you make the claim that no one has offered any tangible evidence for a theory of evolution.
I didn't claim that no one had offered any tangible evidence. I said:
Quote:If someone is going to claim their is tangible proof of evolution being truth I see nothing wrong with asking to see that proof.
I stated a fact. There have been a couple just within the context of this current conversation that have said there is tangible proof. That is what I was refereing to. I apologize if I did not make that clear enough though.
Quote: There are a great many very informative answers in this thread by knowledgable people. There is also a wealth of claptrap like those first two posts--people with a religious agenda and a chip on their shoulder, who are unwilling to learn, or accept correction of their ignorance or false statements, whose only purpose is to denounce what they see as a competing religious doctrine.
Again a fair statement. I hope that I am not being put in with those who have a religious agenda. I have no agenda but to understand this topic. To actually lay aside what I have believed for many many years, not even presenting that as an argument, and actually listen to what others have to say about this. To understand why people believe this. Not people I've never spoken to, or may never speak to, but the here and now. People who would like to discuss this with someone who has questions. That's all. I really mean no harm here. However, if the general consensus is that it ought to just be dropped and I should read what people have said in the past about this, without being able to ask any questions, then so be it. I'm fine with that too. It's just not nearly as interesting to me that way.
hephzibah wrote:Well that's because we know that couldn't happen don't we? It seems if it is said that there is tangible proof of such things, there actually ought to be. Don't you think?
http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html
Evolution for beginners. A good starting place.
P
Anyone here wonder if the Dark Ages ever really ended?
xingu wrote:hephzibah
Quote:Ok, fair enough. So then what makes the theory's on evolution so much more reliable than the theory's on religion?
The answer given was tangible proof. Allow me to expand on that.
Creationism and ID say all animals that ever existed were created at one time by God.
Evolution says they evolved at different periods of time.
If Creationism is correct we should find in the fossil record a flotsam and jetsam of fossils. Dinosaurs mixed with humans mixed with older Permian age animals. But we don't find that. Instead we find fossil confined to their particular age group. Dinosaurs are found in the Age of Dinosaurs group and humans are found in the much later Pleistocene Age. Every fossil find there is supports evolution because every fossil is found in its proper time slot.
Quote:Hmm... interesting. And science has physical proof of these ancestors?
Yes and just recently a new find was
announced that some believe may be the link between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens.
If your interested in seeing our ancestors here is a good place to
start.
One thing to note here. No fossils of dinosaurs or Permian Age animals were found with our human ancestors. But by what Creationist say they should be.
Um. Wow. I have never heard this side of it before. Thanks for the links.
Australopithecines
Also, if you have any knowledge of the progression from the basic developmental stages of man, you can see the small brain cavity becoming larger with each advancement.
That is evolution of man, pure and simple.
Are you familiar with hominids, Cro-magnon, homo habilis, homo erectus and the other homos? <tee, had to make a homo joke>
cicerone imposter wrote:To set up a standard such as "I doubt science will be able to explain everything" is tantamount to implying, "god knows all and can explain all." "God" is a fictional character, unless anybody can prove his existence. In logic, trying to prove a negative with a negative doesn't work too well.
*sigh*
CI. I was setting up no standard. I was stating my personal viewpoint on this subject at this point. Nowhere did I say "God knows all and explains all." I have lived looking at life from the "creationist" point of view for the better part of 17 years a least. So yeah, I'm sure that some of that will come out in what I say sometimes. I'm not here to push the idea of creationism though. I am here to understand why people believe evolution. Why is that so friggin hard to believe? For pete's sake... I am so sick of getting the lash back for what others have done or how others have chosen to approach things in the past.
