[G4ME]

okay i have always been a strong believer in Evolution. Let me first set up the perameters of what i believe.

I believe in evolution, that does not mean that i believe in the first evidence of life. meaning where the hell we came from. I believe more in the ability of a speices to change and adapt to their environment.

When you start getting into the first accounts of life form then it getts really fuzzy and i honestly don't know what i believe in. So lets just leave it alone. and focus on what people believe about the idea of the ability of a speices to change to their environment.

BTW it has been scientificly proven.

[Kronos]

I am a strong believer in evolution as well. I will not get started in a debate of evolution over religion. However, there is just to much evidence showing that organisms adapt to their environments over time.

Matthew

[deekay1]

evolution is a fact of life! don't even get me started on this...

[Nonsuch]

Saying you believe in evolution is like saying you believe in the sun. It's there whether you accept it or not.

[DeathMan]

I think most people accept evolution as valid. We know living things adapt. Whether or not one species actually evolves to another species (fish to bird), is another question entirely. I wouldn't rule it out, though. There is so much that we just don't understand. I guess thats why we have science.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by DeathMan:
I think most people accept evolution as valid.

...without knowing anything about it.

People tend to bite on to some worthless popularr science wisdom and let it guide them to an opinion. You have to see a lot and read a lot before being able to say something like Nonsuch did. I can only imagine he is a biologist?

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by DeathMan:
I think most people accept evolution as valid. We know living things adapt. Whether or not one species actually evolves to another species (fish to bird), is another question entirely.

No it isn't. It's the same question, applied over a much larger period of time.

In my opinion, anybody who doesn't believe in evolution is ignorant, and I group them into the same category as creationists and flat-earth proponents.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
No it isn't. It's the same question, applied over a much larger period of time.

In my opinion, anybody who doesn't believe in evolution is ignorant, and I group them into the same category as creationists and flat-earth proponents.

I don't belive in evolution

In fact I don't believe in science. It isn't faith based. Science is a method used to describe the material world. Things that can be touched or measured. Using data with the scientific method we cen deduct a whole lot of important or at least interesting information about the world. You don't have to believe in it. It just is. It isn't because science says so, but it just is. Like gravity on this planet. Doesn't matter if you believe in it or not, and it doesn't matter what science makes out of it. It still is here.

Saying you believe in an opinion based on science is a bit off I think (don't take this personally ciph, I'm on a rant here) because science is never 100% certain. Everything can happen, sorta. I am thinking this from the perspective of biology mind you. One of the most important things I have realized during my brief study of life is that anything can happen in life. Sure there are general rules 99.99999% of a given species follows, but there may be exceptions. In fact there usually are, if you observe them long enough. Evolution is very likely according to science. And you can believe in it. It doesn't make it real though.

(btw, I am what you might call a sceptic of evolution as it is commonly perceived and yet I am a genuine Darwinist in the sense that I'm a great fan!! I'm sure he was right about some of it if not all.)

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I don't belive in evolution

In fact I don't believe in science. It isn't faith based. Science is a method used to describe the material world. Things that can be touched or measured. Using data with the scientific method we cen deduct a whole lot of important or at least interesting information about the world. You don't have to believe in it. It just is. It isn't because science says so, but it just is. Like gravity on this planet. Doesn't matter if you believe in it or not, and it doesn't matter what science makes out of it. It still is here.

Saying you believe in an opinion based on science is a bit off I think (don't take this personally ciph, I'm on a rant here) because science is never 100% certain. Everything can happen, sorta. I am thinking this from the perspective of biology mind you. One of the most important things I have realized during my brief study of life is that anything can happen in life. Sure there are general rules 99.99999% of a given species follows, but there may be exceptions. In fact there usually are, if you observe them long enough. Evolution is very likely according to science. And you can believe in it. It doesn't make it real though.

(btw, I am what you might call a sceptic of evolution as it is commonly perceived and yet I am a genuine Darwinist in the sense that I'm a great fan!! I'm sure he was right about some of it if not all.)

You're correct, of course. In a sense. Just because my stapler is sitting on my desk, though, doesn't mean I can't believe it's sitting on my desk. All semantics.

As for life, again, sure. Everything is possible.

Reworded, hopefully to your satisfaction: evolution is.

[voodoo]

[- - e r i k - -]

This poll is invalid. It's not a question of belief. It's not the same as believing in religion, it's the same as believing that the spoon is either there or not.

Hint: It's there.

[Cipher13]

I wonder who voted for "No, I don't believe in it".

I doubt they'll show themselves.

[tintub]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
This poll is invalid. It's not a question of belief. It's not the same as believing in religion, it's the same as believing that the spoon is either there or not.

Hint: It's there.

there is no spoon

(sorry - that was just begging to be said )

[jckalen]

Here's a stumper for creationists and evolutionists alike. What if God controls evolution? I guess it would technically make both sides "right" in a way.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by jckalen:
Here's a stumper for creationists and evolutionists alike. What if God controls evolution? I guess it would technically make both sides "right" in a way.

Question of the millenium.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by jckalen:
Here's a stumper for creationists and evolutionists alike. What if God controls evolution? I guess it would technically make both sides "right" in a way.

evolution never tried to disprove the existence of god (philosophy did that a long time ago).

it tries to explain "how things work" using the scientific method.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by jckalen:
Here's a stumper for creationists and evolutionists alike. What if God controls evolution? I guess it would technically make both sides "right" in a way.

Evolutionists don't deny the existence of "God".

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Evolutionists don't deny the existence of "God".

Darwin never denied the existance of God.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Darwin never denied the existance of God.

Indeed.

IMO... to deny the existence of God is as ignorant as spending your life worshipping "Him".

We simply do not know.

[Swiss Bob]

Yep. I think evolution is right. To me, discounting it is like saying "God ain't powerful enough to do evolution".

[scaught]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Indeed.

IMO... to deny the existence of God is as ignorant as spending your life worshipping "Him".

We simply do not know.

ding ding ding.

that "whathaveyou" that tells atheists that "there is no god", its juuuuuuust about the same as the one that tells believers in a higher power, that there is one.

[gadster]

The only thing I reckon is wrong with the classical theory of evolution (survival of the 'fittest') is that it should really be; survival of anything that is not 'unfit'. It's a subtle difference but an important one.

It means that inherent differences in a batch of offspring would be 'tolerated' by their environments, over time, unless they made that individual less likely to bear 'fit' offspring. Any variation is OK as long as it is not selected against, by the environment.

This allows for more variation. When the environment changes, (as is its wont) it pays for a population to have lots of variation, because it increases the the chances that the population will have at least some members who can deal with the new environment.

So, the freaks at the fringes, become the new elite - perfectly adapted to deal with the new environment
[edit] changed mind entirely

[wdlove]

Originally posted by jckalen:
Here's a stumper for creationists and evolutionists alike. What if God controls evolution? I guess it would technically make both sides "right" in a way.

That was my thought when I answered yes to the question. In the beginning there was God. There is nothing in Genesis that is contradictory to the theory of evolution. God is in full control, he is the sculptor and we are the clay!

[deekay1]

Originally posted by wdlove:
God is in full control, he is the sculptor and we are the clay!

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by wdlove:
That was my thought when I answered yes to the question. In the beginning there was God. There is nothing in Genesis that is contradictory to the theory of evolution. God is in full control, he is the sculptor and we are the clay!

Yes! There is nothing in the bible that is contradictory to evolution. God created the Earth in seven days...okay, whose days? ours?

To me evolution and creation are one and the same. What caused the Big Bang? The hand of God, of course.

[gadster]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Yes! There is nothing in the bible that is contradictory to evolution. God created the Earth in seven days...okay, whose days? ours?

To me evolution and creation are one and the same. What caused the Big Bang? The hand of God, of course.

What species is this god of yours, and describe, briefly, his lineage.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Yes! There is nothing in the bible that is contradictory to evolution. God created the Earth in seven days...okay, whose days? ours?

To me evolution and creation are one and the same. What caused the Big Bang? The hand of God, of course.

To God a day is a 1,000 years, and a 1,000 years a day. At the beginning was God!

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by gadster:
What species is this god of yours, and describe, briefly, his lineage.

Why?

[Kitschy]

While the Bible doesn't say anything specifically about evolution, I don't believe anybody will be damned eternally for believing it. I take Genesis as literal, though, not as an allegory.

I believe God created the universe in seven literal days. I don't believe He needed to plod through millions (what's it up to now, billions?) of years of mutations in order to create a human with whom he could have a personal relationship.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
While the Bible doesn't say anything specifically about evolution, I don't believe anybody will be damned eternally for believing it. I take Genesis as literal, though, not as an allegory.

I believe God created the universe in seven literal days. I don't believe He needed to plod through millions (what's it up to now, billions?) of years of mutations in order to create a human with whom he could have a personal relationship.

So why did he leave evidence that the planet, and indeed life, have been around for millions, if not billions, of years? Just to confuse us?

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
So why did he leave evidence that the planet, and indeed life, have been around for millions, if not billions, of years? Just to confuse us?

Well, think about this. Genesis speaks of Adam being created as a man, not born like a baby. So, let's say Adam looked 30 years old when God breathed life into him. Although he looked 30 years old, he was technically a day old. Same goes for the Garden of Eden. He created trees that were pretty big probably and had lots of trunk rings, but really the trees were only one day. He may have created the Grand Canyon already looking like it had been worn for millions of years.

So, all I'm saying is by looking at Adam as the example of created things that have "age", I would assume God created other things in the same way.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Well, think about this. Genesis speaks of Adam being created as a man, not born like a baby. So, let's say Adam looked 30 years old when God breathed life into him. Although he looked 30 years old, he was technically a day old. Same goes for the Garden of Eden. He created trees that were pretty big probably and had lots of trunk rings, but really the trees were only one day. He may have created the Grand Canyon already looking like it had been worn for millions of years.

So, all I'm saying is by looking at Adam as the example of created things that have "age", I would assume God created other things in the same way.

Right, if we assume that the creation story in Genesis (which one, by the way?) is literally true, I can buy that God would create trees that appeared to be hundreds of years old and a planet that had feature that would otherwise take millions of years to form, but why would He leave the remains of creatures that no longer exist and appear to have existed farther back in time than the earth is supposed to have existed? That's what doesn't make sense. Ancient-looking geological features and accelerated plant and animal growth I can buy, but why leave evidence that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago? Why create direct evidence of millions of years of evolution when no such thing existed? Is God intentially deceiving us?

[UNTeMac]

Folks, the bible is not a science book because it cannot be proven or disproven by the scientific method, making it moot in an evolutionary discussion. If you want to discount the length of time evolution has taken to make us, use science.

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Right, if we assume that the creation story in Genesis (which one, by the way?) is literally true, I can buy that God would create trees that appeared to be hundreds of years old and a planet that had feature that would otherwise take millions of years to form, but why would He leave the remains of creatures that no longer exist and appear to have existed farther back in time than the earth is supposed to have existed? That's what doesn't make sense. Ancient-looking geological features and accelerated plant and animal growth I can buy, but why leave evidence that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago? Why create direct evidence of millions of years of evolution when no such thing existed? Is God intentially deceiving us?

Well, I believe that dinosaurs and humans were around at the same time. And, I think the consensus is that the great flood took-'em-out.

I don't believe God would decieve us into thinking dinosaur fossils were millions of years old. As for the actual dating of the fossils. I, personally, take that with a grain of salt, as I believe that the universe has been around for around 6 to 7 thousand years (or so. Definitely no millions).

[G4ME]

common people read the topic, its about evolution not religion, if you want to discuss the bible then do it in another thread.

thanks

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Evolutionists don't deny the existence of "God".

Well, if something evolves, it had to evolve from something, right?

When people start asking how everything got here in the first place, I believe their reaching beyond the bounds of human understanding.

There are just some things we'll never know, IMO

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Folks, the bible is not a science book because it cannot be proven or disproven by the scientific method, making it moot in an evolutionary discussion.

The Bible is a historical record, taken by people who are as fallible as you and I

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by Dale Sorel:
There are just some things we'll never know, IMO

I couldn't agree more!

[scaught]

folks. the bible is a work that you can CHOOSE to accept as fact or fiction.

because there are lots of people who dont believe a word of it, and lots of people who DO, its hardly able to be presented as evidence.

any discussion of "evolution" shouldnt really have any biblical mentions.

YOU can believe it if you want to. but it shouldnt be something that supports an argument.

[Kitschy]

Who says science is the best way of going about learning about our universe?

[j45degrees]

Wired magazine had a very interesting article titled "The New Convergence" by Gregg Easterbrook in its Dec. 2002 issue [Pg. 165].

Short excerpt from this article:

"Meanwhile, decades of inconclusive inquiry have left the science-has-all-the-answers script in tatters. As recently as the '70s, intellectuals assumed that hard science was on track to resolve the two Really Big Questions: why life exists and how the universe began. What's more, both Really Big Answers were assumed to involve strictly deterministic forces. But things haven't worked out that way. Instead, the more scientists have learned, the more mysterious the Really Big Questions have become. "

The article can be found here:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...nvergence.html

[Tesseract]

The Bible is not a scientific work and should not be used as evedience to confirm, deny, or otherwise influence your opinion of any scientific theory. The Bible just wasn't written to answer these types of questions - it's a collection of historical texts and religious works.

"The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go" - Galileo Galilei


PS. I'm a Christian and believe in the Creation - but not that is is mutually exclusive of evolution.

[coolmacdude]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Who says science is the best way of going about learning about our universe?

Exactly. Science cannot deal with the origin of the universe. The scientific method relies on observation, it is the first step. Since none of us was there to observe the beginning of the universe, it is illogical to apply scientific reasoning and hypothesis to it. Whatever you believe about our origins has to be taken on faith. Whether that is a God who created everything or evolution that happened by chance, it is a personal choice that has to be made outside the realm of science.

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by j45degrees:
Wired magazine had a very interesting article titled "The New Convergence" by Gregg Easterbrook in its Dec. 2002 issue [Pg. 165].

Short excerpt from this article:

"Meanwhile, decades of inconclusive inquiry have left the science-has-all-the-answers script in tatters. As recently as the '70s, intellectuals assumed that hard science was on track to resolve the two Really Big Questions: why life exists and how the universe began. What's more, both Really Big Answers were assumed to involve strictly deterministic forces. But things haven't worked out that way. Instead, the more scientists have learned, the more mysterious the Really Big Questions have become. "

The article can be found here:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...nvergence.html

Fascinating. Good article, thanks for the link.

Several variations on the multiverse theory are popular in academia because they suggest how our universe could have beaten the odds without a guiding hand. But the multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text. Townes has said that speculation about billions of invisible universes "strikes me as much more freewheeling than any of the church's claims." Tenured professors at Stanford now casually discuss entire unobservable universes. Compare that to religion's proposal of a single invisible plane of existence: the spirit.

Whatever you believe about our origins takes faith.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Whatever you believe about our origins takes faith.

What bothers me about this line of reasoning in general -- I'm not picking on Kitschy specifically -- is that this kind of cautious skepticism ("Science is never 100% positive, so in a sense it's all opinion/belief") only gets trotted out when the topic is evolution. How many people, who think that concurring with prevalent scientific viewpoints (after doing some investigation yourself if you feel the need), hold out similar skepticism about the law of gravity? The heliocentric theory of the solar system? (After all, has anyone here actually seen the planets orbiting the Sun?) Quantum mechanics? Hell, how do you even know the Earth is round, without walking around it yourself?

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
What bothers me about this line of reasoning in general -- I'm not picking on Kitschy specifically -- is that this kind of cautious skepticism ("Science is never 100% positive, so in a sense it's all opinion/belief") only gets trotted out when the topic is evolution. How many people, who think that concurring with prevalent scientific viewpoints (after doing some investigation yourself if you feel the need), hold out similar skepticism about the law of gravity? The heliocentric theory of the solar system? (After all, has anyone here actually seen the planets orbiting the Sun?) Quantum mechanics? Hell, how do you even know the Earth is round, without walking around it yourself?

Pretty much observable evidence, right? Pictures of the earth from space, I am stuck to the earth - gravity, pictures of the universe from space... I mean, none of us were actually there to see the beginnings of our universe. And there isn't a DVD of it.

Now, if you're talking about checking the numbers and formulas behind the above things, then that's another story. I have no idea how to check on that unless I went to school all over again for another degree. So, in that sense I would have to take the scientists word by faith. In addition to that though, it's not like these are hard things to believe: the observations I've made lead me to believe that the earth is round, the universe does revolve around the sun and that gravity...works.

[Nonsuch]

Kitschy: what observations have led you to conclude, for example, that the earth is only 7,000 years old, or that humans shared the planet with dinosaurs?

[Fyre4ce]

I believe I have something to add to this discussion. I posted these few paragraphs in a topic here recently and I'll repeat them:

---
Science, in a general description, is really nothing more than creating models (usually in the language of mathematics) which describe the universe. That's it. These models are useful to people like myself (an engineer) because they allow us to predict what might happen in certain circumstances without having to test everything. For example, our model for mechanical systems allows someone to design a part (say, a linkage) to a certain strength without having to make 20 linkages of different types and test them all to failure.

Models have varying degrees of scope. Some models describe only a narrow slice of the universe, while others are much more broad (Newtonian mechanics). Generally, the more broad the scope of the model, and the more accurate it is, and the simpler it is, the more useful it is. F = ma is one simple equation which accurately predicts a huge range of phenomena in the universe. Our model for chemistry is somewhat more complicated but it too is both accurate and broad in scope.

All we can do is continue to run experiments which compare real results to the model. As long as our results agree with the model, it holds, but as soon as someone conducts an experiment which disagrees with the model, either the model is scrapped, modified, or its scope more clearly defined. Again, know that models are created to be USEFUL to predict things, so just because a model can only predict a narrow range of events doesn't mean it's not a good model.

You have to remember, however, that these are only models. There is a huge difference from having a very good model and knowing what's really going on. In a sense, we NEVER really know what's going on- all we have are models (and of course the tools to measure and test them). What's really going on (if you can even define such a term) is almost irrelevant. You can say, "Oh, it's just a mathematical model" about pretty much anything, F = ma included. And also know that even though some models are called "theories" they can never be proven.

Scientists right now are working on creating a so-called "unified theory" which will supposedly be able to predict stuff on a huge range of scales, from the sub-atomic (10^-40 m) to galactic (10^40 m). It's a very tall order, considering the orders of magnitude the theory would need to span. That's why there's all kinds of crazy stuff like "cosmic strings." Are there really cosmic strings? Well, that's not the right question to ask. Would cosmic strings help explain X, Y, and Z? That's more like it.
---

So, "evolution" is just a model which describes how life on this planet is changing. Evolution is supported by much evidence, but it is neither "right" or "wrong."

A few other remarks. According to the description of science which I gave above (which I believe is called the "positivist approach") science does not seek to answer any sweeping ontological questions. Science doesn't really seek to answer any questions- like I said, what's ACTUALLY going on is impossible to determine and irrelevant.

So evolution is not "right." But it is a useful theory. One of my professors is involved in a research project regarding evolutionary design of machines. Essentially, you give a computer rules to build a machine (say, out of an unspecified number of bars of any length, connected with joints and motors) and a criterion for "fitness" (say, the ability to crawl across the floor as fast as possible). The computer then runs simulations of generations, where the members of each generation represent combinations of the "best" machines from the previous generation. After about a week of CPU time the program had some pretty cool designs, which were then rapid-prototyped and ended up crawling across the floor of my lecture hall. So, evolution is an accurate model of what's going on. Those who disagree are ignoring a vast body of evidence in support of the theory.

Oh yes, someone here said they believed that the universe is only several thousand years old. How do you explain radio-carbon dating? To say that carbon dating is inaccurate is to say that most of our models for physics and chemistry are inaccurate- which is possible yet goes against mountains of evidence.

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by Tesseract:
"The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go" - Galileo Galilei

Great quote

[Ozmodiar]

coolmacdude, even though no one was around to see the Big Bang, we can see the effects of it: background "noise" from the BB is detectable.

There are lots of assumptions in science that are perfectly valid. For instance, I wasn't present for the birth of the squirrel outside my window right now, but I can assume that it was conceived, gestated for a small period of time, and then was born with brothers and sisters. I wasn't there, but I'm 100% positive that's the way it happened.