This thread is intended to help dispel some of the myths about evolution. To believe in evolution, one needs a measure of faith. We haven't seen with our eyes what Darwin suggested, and there have been corollaries to the theory since Darwin lived. Time to ask yourself. What do you believe?
The Theory of Evolution
- Thread starter NeenerNeener
- Start date
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
There is no way to believe in it in a non-faith manner. Yes we witness natural selection everyday, but the whole scope of evolution is unknowable as of right now, and perhaps forever. Although I don't believe it to be as big a leap as believing what one book from 2000 years ago says. I mean isn't the Odyssey roughly that old, I don't believe in Cyclops and Sirens...
I liked the Sirens. They were hot! 
I was wondering. Once my cousin asked me, "Do you believe in evolution, or do you believe in God?" Is it okay (for you) to believe in both, or does one contradict the other?
I was wondering. Once my cousin asked me, "Do you believe in evolution, or do you believe in God?" Is it okay (for you) to believe in both, or does one contradict the other?
Yup.
Should really be termed the Principle of Evolution by now given the mountain of evidence supporting it (and nothing Scientific opposing it).
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
I liked the Sirens. They were hot!
I was wondering. Once my cousin asked me, "Do you believe in evolution, or do you believe in God?" Is it okay (for you) to believe in both, or does one contradict the other?
Contrary to common belief it is possible to believe in them both, in a kind of "Intelligent Design" type manner. Think of God setting in motion physics instead of magic.
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
I liked the Sirens. They were hot!
I was wondering. Once my cousin asked me, "Do you believe in evolution, or do you believe in God?" Is it okay (for you) to believe in both, or does one contradict the other?
Contrary to common belief it is possible to believe in them both, in a kind of "Intelligent Design" type manner. Think of God setting in motion physics instead of magic.
:laugh:
You should read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. I wanted to get a pro and a con book on the subject, and this dude's a biochemist and his angle has nothing to do with espousing creationism (although creationists use his arguments anyway). He raises some good questions.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
I liked the Sirens. They were hot!
I was wondering. Once my cousin asked me, "Do you believe in evolution, or do you believe in God?" Is it okay (for you) to believe in both, or does one contradict the other?
Contrary to common belief it is possible to believe in them both, in a kind of "Intelligent Design" type manner. Think of God setting in motion physics instead of magic.
:laugh:
didn't say i bought it, just stating it's possible. but then monkeys might fly out my butt.
ID seems like a really lazy argument to me. I feel like they're saying "it's complicated, so God must be responsible."
personally, I don't know how my stereo works, but I'm not about to tell people it was crafted by the hand of God
personally, I don't know how my stereo works, but I'm not about to tell people it was crafted by the hand of God
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
I liked the Sirens. They were hot!
I was wondering. Once my cousin asked me, "Do you believe in evolution, or do you believe in God?" Is it okay (for you) to believe in both, or does one contradict the other?
Contrary to common belief it is possible to believe in them both, in a kind of "Intelligent Design" type manner. Think of God setting in motion physics instead of magic.
Someone once said, "Quantum mechanics is the dreams that stuff is made of." I do sort of think of things like you say, except I'm not really a true deist because I personally believe in a God that is somewhat active in people's lives.
How do you think that life arose spontaneously from inanimate matter?
A. Miller and Wächtershäuser's theories
B. Clay Theory
C. Spontaneous generation.
D. "Deep-hot biosphere" model
E. "Primitive" extraterrestrial life
Originally posted by: loki8481
ID seems like a really lazy argument to me. I feel like they're saying "it's complicated, so God must be responsible."
personally, I don't know how my stereo works, but I'm not about to tell people it was crafted by the hand of God
I don't think I really believe in intelligent design. It just sounds like another fancy word for creationism to me.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
One key point to make is that Evolution does not even start to explain creation. I believe there is substantial eveidence for the theory of evolution, I wouldn't say I "believe" in it as this implies I hope the theory is true and do not critically analyse the proposed facts.
Evolution doesn't totally contradict the bible, that all depends on whether or not you take the bible literally or not.
I know people, mostly catholics who are religious and recognize evolution evidence.
Evolution doesn't totally contradict the bible, that all depends on whether or not you take the bible literally or not.
I know people, mostly catholics who are religious and recognize evolution evidence.
Lets boil Behe's whole book down to one sentence. Life can't evolve because it's too complex and can't work without it's parts. His entire book is based on the premise that life has a "goal". or an objective, as the life evolves and this is contrary to reality. There is no causality, there is no goal.
Evolution is a fact. It's an observed, documented and confirmed fact of this world. The "theory of evolution" is the method by which that observed, documented and confirmed process works. When creationists talk about evolution what they do is disregard the fact and accept the theory (natural selection). The irony and outright idiocy of that position is outstanding.
And lets be clear on something else, science isn't faith. Science is based on reason, evidence and experimentation. Creationists have been trying for years to say that science is somehow equivalent to religion by equating science to faith. They have and continue to seek the credibility that science has but they will never achieve it because their beliefs are not based on reason, evidence and experimentation. Until god is willing to show up and participate in an experiement to prove his existence then religion is relegated to philosophy were it shall stay. If your religion contradicts the observed universe than it is your perogative to ignore those observations and pretend they don't exist but don't try to convince me that the science is wrong because you think your book says it is.
Cool, a thread on evolution that doesn't suck!
Personally, I voted for option B. I think the wording of that answer is exactly what I feel. AFAIK, no one knows exactly HOW life evolved. Hell, we can't even explain life in its current state.
So while I'm not against it, it just seems a bit too vague to me to promote as unquestionable truth.
Edit: Just as an afterthought, I'm strongly against anything like creationism or ID being taught.
Personally, I voted for option B. I think the wording of that answer is exactly what I feel. AFAIK, no one knows exactly HOW life evolved. Hell, we can't even explain life in its current state.
So while I'm not against it, it just seems a bit too vague to me to promote as unquestionable truth.
Edit: Just as an afterthought, I'm strongly against anything like creationism or ID being taught.
The theory of the inititial creation of life on this earth is Abiogenesis, which is actually a seperate theory that is not required to work in order for evolution to hold up as a theory. You can potentially believe that god created the first life on earth, and then evolution took it from there without divine intervention. Evolution merely covers what happens after the creation of life on earth, other things including the initial creation of life are covered by seperate theories.
Before you start criticizing evolution, you really should make sure you fully understand the theory first, and you actually seem to be missing the actual definition. What does seriously bother me is how many critics of evolutionary theory don't seem to be willing to go to the trouble of fully understanding the theory in the first place.
Ah. Didn't Behe admit that he basically believed in evolution? You've probably also read Dawkin's Climbing Mount Improbable or The Blind Watchmaker. in which he explains evolution not just as natural selection, but as random mutation coupled with natural selection. I keep hearing creationists just plain get it wrong when they speak of life being too complex to have been based merely on randomness. They quip about how we cannot arrive at random to the complexity of the human mind that we "see" today.
However, in science, there have been other theories that were almost always true. A good example is Newtonian mechanics. F = ma. Or how about Energy = Potential Energy + Kinetic Energy = FD + 1/2 mv ^ 2 It was true pretty much all the time. Except when Einstein came up with Mass Energy and the idea that it's almost always true except when we approach very high speeds it must be MODIFIED to add the mc ^ 2.
Since Darwin's The Origin of the Species, there have been corollaries to modify the original theory such as "punctuated equilibrium" in recent times. Things like that would make someone who had accepted the original theory as absolute fact before feel kind of foolish.
If evolution is true, there should be actual evidence that it occured either in the past or the present.
Where are the transitional links and intermediate forms either in the fossil recoed or in the modern world?
Where are the transitional links and intermediate forms either in the fossil recoed or in the modern world?
I've honestly heard of none of these theories, Riprorin. But I'm sure they are placed there to be X'd off in an orderly fashion in order to discredit evolution. Perhaps we evolved from mitochondria, and mitochondria came about from some other smaller microorganism, and perhaps that just happened to come from some random attachment of amino acids. Doesn't matter to me. I can't explain what happened before the Big Bang either. (perhaps foreplay
) My purpose is to demonstrate that science does not push God from the lives of people who believe. It merely helps us understand the order of things. We have a brain for a reason, right? IMO understanding the order of things helps us to understand God, or whatever version of a higher power, or even the reason for faith. Perhaps a random whack at the ultimate question: "why do we exist?"Where is the "I have no idea what I beileve opition?"...
Rahvin, you're blankly saying evolution is fact... So then why is commonly called a "theory"?
Rahvin, you're blankly saying evolution is fact... So then why is commonly called a "theory"?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 404
-
Facebook
Twitter