Posted: 8/12/2005 10:17:49 PM EDT
|
OK, here are the ground rules. 1. Do NOT post here if you are going to insult someone or be offensive. 2. By posting on this topic you agree to Rule #1 and give permission for your account to be locked if you violate Rule #1. 3. This is NOT a religious topic. Some have suggested that EVERYTHING regarding belief of any kind is a "religious" issue but I can't say I subscribe to that idea. I don't think my NON BELIEF in Zeus or Apollo qualifies as religion. OK, first things first. It is NOT my intention to disprove the existence of God or the validity of ANY relgion. Personally I don't see how Evolution does either. It IS my intention to address the idea that Evolution is merely a "theory" with no more validity than the literal creation story of Genesis. Evolution "was" a theory when it was first suggested, the fossil record that was later established proved it as FACT. Here is the evidence. We have the fossil remains of these distinct species of Man: Homo Sapiens - Modern man (from 200,000 years ago) Homo Neanderthalensis - 250,000 to 29,000 years ago Homo Heidelbergensis - 800,000 to 300,000 years ago We know for a FACT that these are all DIFFERENT species of Man and all built shelters, used tools, made fire and even made art. Now some will try and suggest that the other "species" are merely early man with various deformities or some other such suggestion. The fossil record of these species is numerous enough to render such notions as absurd. Some will also suggest we haven't properly dated them and dating methods are not accurate. The dating methods do have limits when trying to date things of 'recent' existence but the dating methods for fossils are not unreliable and anyone who suggests they are has little working knowledge of those dating methods. Furthermore it doesn't matter. Even if EVERY species of Man discovered was only 500,000 years old we STILL have a variety of species of Man which is more than enough to establish Evolution as something that is FACT and not just an idea or theory. We also have the fossil record of these species: Homo Erectus - Includes several species of very early man dating from 1.8 Million years ago to about 700,000 years ago and all of them made tools and used fire. Homo Ergaster - Another distinct species of Man that lived from about 1.8 Million years ago to about 1.2 Million years ago and was known to make and use tools. The above were all absolutely species of Man. All were absolutely different species. Earlier species of Man do exists going back another Million years or so. These are much more primitive examples of Man and many would argue that they are in fact primates. So I will leave them alone and concentrate ONLY on the above which are KNOWN species that used fire, made tools and later built shelter and made art. I think it is safe to assume these are things that ONLY Man has ever done. Also Evolution does NOT happen in a linear straight line with one species replacing the previous. Many times several species co existed for some time with the most successful of the species outlasting the less successful species of Man. The last example of this was Cro Magnon which co existed for a time with Neanderthal until the last Neanderthals died out. Now if you like you can believe the following. God created "Man" and Evolution was his tool. God selected a lower species as the raw material. It is unlikely that Homo Erectus spoke a language and named the animals until expelled from a Garden of Eden but it you want to believe that I cannot prove it didn't happen. You can also believe the literal story of Genesis is true and God created a Earth with a history that never happened and he (or Satan if you like) put fossils in the ground that never lived complete with evidence of stone tools, fire and man made shelters. None of this is true and fossils are nothing more than strangely shaped rocks and we don't really understand anything about anything. But if you accept the Natural Fossil Record as evidence that things like Dinosaurs once actually walked the Earth then that same fossil record has examples of various species of Man from various times and that fossil record demonstrates CHANGE OVER TIME. Which is what Evolution is. If anyone has any genuine questions I will attempt to POLITELY answer them. |
|
Polite, on ARFCOM, about something with religious overtones? I wish you the best of luck.  ETA: I agree, your post is well written, but disagree slightly about "religious topic". You have to understand that for some of us, our faith is what guides us. I also applaud your effort at having a civil discussion. |
|
Well yes and no. That evolution is a working process is fact. That evolution is responsible for the creation of life and the accent of man is absolutely a theory. You are making assumptions… they may be valid but they are still assumptions. No one can show proof for that premise, you can suppose the evidence to prove the theory might exist but at this time it is missing. Until it can be shown that there is an uninterrupted fossil record that proves the theory it remains theory. The term “missing link’ exists for a reason and that reason is the proof is missing. I have no problem with the premise that god used evolution to bring man to his current form... but you cannot at this point with certainty say that the theory of evolution shows the manner of the accent of man the complete evidence/record does not at this time exist. |
|
I'd like to make a TECHNCIAL point, not intended as a bash of anu beliefe system, etc. Creationism, "Intelligent design" and other such suggestions are NOT, and never have been, competing theories. They are what a scientist would call a "non-falsifiable theory" which is not a theory at all, but a story that cannot be proven false (not to insult anyone, but the Easter Bunny, Reincarnation, Ghosts, Ecnomics, etc - all fall into this category). A theory BY DEFINTION has to be falsifiable and has to generate testable hypotheses. It also (generally) has to provide a causal mechanism to explain phenomena. Saying "God did it" does not qualify as a theory, because it cannot be falsified. Current understanding of how gravity works is a theory. It can be tested. Doesn't mean it FULLY EXPLAINS gravity, just that it is the most complete explanation we have to date. We still don't quite understand how gravity works at a fundamental level, nor what particles/waves transmit the effect - however we have a pretty good predictive model that fits observed reality with great accuracy. You can design experiments that could disprove it, if it were incorrect. Evolution is also a theory, and is currently the best explanation we have of how species change over time, and how new species appear. It is certainly not a FULL explanation either, and there are lots of details that need to be better understood, and it is MUCH HARDER to test. However, it is still testable, and is still falsifiable - it is just more tricky and slippery. So is much of astrophysics - doesn't mean that the lifecycles of Main Sequence stars isn't theory, just because we cannot test it in a 5-minute expriment in a lab. Evolution is BY FAR the strongest theory to explain the phenomena (diversity of life on Earth), and is the only real plausible one out there. It is NOT a coincidence that tens of thousands of professional biologists, biochemists, geneticitsts, medical researchers, with PhD's at top universities, research institutions and pharmaceutical and biochemical companies all support the theory, and (in general) those who oppose it do not have any advanced degrees in those fields, and do not work at top universities, companies, etc. (Feel free to trot out conspiracy theories to explain that - but conspiracy theories are generlly ALSO non-falisifiable theories). Thus, in short - stories that have the explanation "God did it" for complex causal relationships are not theories (when there are more plausible alternatives)* * - I noted "when there are more plausible alternatives" because there obviously are phenomena where "God did it" are AS GOOD explanations as any that science can CURRENTLY offer. What caused the Big Bang? Nobody knows, and "God did it" is as good an explanation (or theory) as any other, becuase all of the other "theories" are just as non-falsifiable. Similarly the question of what CREATED life (not the mechanism of how it changes over time) is also unknown. Currently, science just has guesses and non-falsifiable theories to explain how LIFE started on Earth, and "God did it" is just as good an explanation. |
That is well put. |
- in addition to two other typos in that line alone. 
OK STOP. That is ALL I was trying to achieve. There are MANY who deny what YOU understand. OBVIOUSLY we do NOT have the proof for the first creation of life itself. Don't know if we ever will. And as for the "accent of man" that is indeed a tough one. Hard to decide where man starts. Do you start at stone tools? Man HAD to be man first to come up with the idea. Do you start at mans "first thought"? Probably a good place but I'll be hard pressed to pick out the first fossil that belonged to the first guy to say "Hey wtf is goning on here?" So as you can see that one is gonna be a bit tricky. And in fairness we've only been at this 150 years or so and we still have a lot to learn. But given the fact that we have OBSERVABLE evolutions of Man through time where he became more and more like modern man it is "reasonable" (and yes at this stage it IS an assumption) to assume the equation works in reverse. But THAT part is still kinda in the works, the fossil record is hardly complete and deciding exactly WHAT qualifies as the "first man" is subjective. So in regard to your latter points you are CORRECT about Evolution being a "theory" in regards to the origin of life and the "accent of man." This was also noted by DK-PROF. I was just seeking to establish the fact that Evolution is also an observable FACT given the fossil record that currently exists. |
|
Edited my stuff back out. Sorry to SteyrAug and everyone else - I posted before thinking twice. If anyone quoting me desires, please edit it out so SteyrAug can keep this discussion running the way he intended it to. I felt like an idiot this morning. Live and learn. |
This is general discussion... if you don't like the topic don't click the damn link. Go away and don't look... we in the mean time will try to act like adults and have a rational conversation. |
Let me add that while I believe that evolution is a working process Dwain was not even close as to how the process actually works. The process is not the orderly procession of natural selection at work that Dwain believed it was. Of course his was the first stab at understanding the process. I filmily believe that the processed of evolution is far more tied to natural accidents that natural selection. Even today what scientist think they know about the actual workings of the evolutionary process are mostly just guesses with little real supporting evidence. You hit at a little of this above. |
The ONLY thing I would add is I think "natural selection" IS a process at work, just not the ONLY process at work. But I think we are on the same page. |
I agree. |
|
Yes the magnetic flux or gravity pull is what keeps the solar winds(created by the sun's gases and eruptions)from frying us like right now!!! The asteriod belt scatered by pluto rains debris on us and comets,and space debris carry microbes from space onto this water filled planet!! Thus from warm pockmarked depressions in the river beds we evolved!!! HG WELLS the origin of mankind! We evolved from single celled amebios!!! PLEASE!!! Bob 
|
Well first you accussed ME of starting several daily posts on the subject. Your exact words were... "both you and Garandman come to mind" Second you came here with the hope that this topic get's locked. I care NOT that you don't address my post (and it has NOTHING to do with a "theory.") I came to have a POLITE discussion about a topic. Everything was FINE till YOU posted. If you don't like the topic - don't click on it. You don't see me posting all over the religious forum about how much their posts piss me off. |
You know I was rooting for you untill that last line,Evolution is not about Religion!!! You should go back to the religion forum!!! I think SA didn't really think that he is a MOD(but vote for him in the movie forum)! But your ass is grass if you try some more of this religious mumbo-jumbo in the movie forum!!!! Bob
|
There are so many errors in this post I don't know where to start. Can I suggest a website that gets 1,000,000 hits a month.www.answersingenesis.org/home.aspx Please spend some time there before you try to explain creationism to us again, there is something like 35,000 articles on that site. Look up some articles about fossil dating and find out that many of those dates were decided on BEFORE any dating methods were thought up. Also, those dating methods Always use assumptions to come to their conclusions, assumptions that have been proven wrong many times. Also, you don't understand the evolution if you think it is non-religious, Erasmus Darwin, Charles' grandfather and the true inventer of the theory sure thought it was. |
That's nice but this is in GENERAL Discussion. There is NO requirement for the topic to be about guns or not making your own rules (which may or may not be followed). Try not being so full of yourself.  general (adjective) not confined by specialization or careful limitation |
|
+1 to DK-Prof's post. A lot of people don't realize there is a difference between the word 'theory' as used in everyday conversation and as used in reference to science. Hence, we have people who keep saying, "Evolution is just a theory." No, it's not that kind of theory -- it's a scientific theory. That means it is based on observable evidence and not speculation. If we went by the "It's Just a Theory" people's standard, we could also throw out gravitation since it is best explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity. |
|
I find it to be hilarious on ARFCOM.
|
|
Good morning, SteyrAUG. Got to admire your guts!  A Polite discussion about evolution? Give me a break. I have only a couple of short comments. 1. Regarding the theory of evolution; I don't believe it. I have a university degree, so I would offer that I "understand" it. I have taken courses where it was taught and passed them. So I "understand" the theory well. I just do not believe that it has been proven. It always amazes me that when people differ about which is best, a Bushmaster or a Colt AR15, we might have heated debates, but the insults are minimal. But just say that you don't believe in the theory of evolution and suddenly, as one poster has already stated, "They are closed minded. They will not open their minds to possibilities." See? I don't believe in this unproven theory because I am "closed minded". And I refuse to "open (my) mind to possibilities". Could there be another possibility? Maybe, just maybe, (stick with me here, Bubba), I have studied the issue a great deal. And maybe I have done due dilligence and determined, as far as I can tell, that there is no better explaination than the Biblical explaination. I would expound upon the Biblical explaination, but don't want to violate your rules. So, I'll just stop. 2. My other small point is: As usual, look who is being rude and ugly on this post. The same suspects as always. One pointed out that you don't own this site and can't make the rules. They better thank the God they do not believe in that I don't own the site. I know what to do with trolls. |
|
Don't feed the trolls, and +1 to DK-Prof. Allow me to get in the first word on an often-misunderstood subject: The Second Law of Thermodynamics. In it's proper form, it says that the NET ENTROPY of any CLOSED SYSTEM must always increase. First, the Earth alone is not a closed system - energy constantly streams into it from the Sun. We have to account for at least the energy from the sun, if not the input from the rest of the universe, to properly analyze entropy on the Earth. Second, entropy is associated with compexity, such as a planet with no life vs a planet teeming with life, but that isn't the complete definition. It is more properly associated with temperature differences - a system with a high temperature zone and a low temperature zone has much lower entropy then the same system with a uniform temperature. Creationists often misinterpret the second law to mean that a spontantous increase in complexity is impossible. But a spontantous increase in complexity is not what happens with evolution. The sun's entropy increases on a massive scale to support the energy that it sends towards us. This entropy change must be accounted for in order to analyze the change in entropy associated with evolution. When alll of the changes are accounted for, forming a closed system, the entropy does increase as it always does, despite the evolution of intelligent life. |
|
A person can still believe in God while accepting Evolution as a valid scientific theory. A Philosophical belief that the image of God is not well defined and is ever changing, and that the bible on tells us God's plan's for human beings. It does not tell us his plan for other living entities. |
|
What those who doubt evolution always seem to miss is that though the fossil record is FAR fromi complete and continuous, the fact is that the conditions under which fossils are formed are very specific and very, very, VERY rare. In the case of the preservation of such things as fossilized footprints or tracks, such conditions may occur only once in millions of years. Bone fossilization is more common, but even then, the conditions for fossil formation are very, very rare and specific. The carcasses must not be heavily scavenged. The environmental conditions must not be conducive to the erosion and decay of bones. Earth must be accumulating over the bones, and very rapidly in geological terms. Volcanic eruptions and ashfalls account for MOST of the large fossil beds ever discovered. Perhaps once in a hundred thousand years, conditions are right in any given area for ANY fossilization to occur. More in some areas, less in others. For someone to say that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution is not necessarily an inaccurate statement. But for someone to say that it doesn't support evolution because it's not complete is simply WRONG. Given the scarcity of fossils and how rarely they are formed, they present a remarkably compelling case for evolution, all things considered. God doesn't work harder than He has to. He didn't have to laboriously, painstakingly build this planet rock by rock and carbon compound by carbon compound. Naturally occurring processes that are the inevitable consequences of the physical laws that define our universe were all that was needed to turn this rock into a habitat for a diverse array of lifeforms. God's work was then to simply give a few gentle nudges to the prehistoric creatures that would eventually evolve and become modern man. I believe in God. And I believe in evolution. Because the two are not incompatible. What I don't believe in are the LIES that are in the bible and other religious textbooks regarding the origin of earth and man. I say that again: LIES. Consider the times, consider the sources, consider the level of enlightenment of the people, consider what they knew or could understand of their world. A person from 100 years ago would be mystified by many things you use in daily life, and would not comprehend their operating principles. Your computer is utterly magical, and so is your cell phone, to such a person. All the sciences we know today were unknown in biblical times. How could you expect for anyone to have put accurate information regarding such things into the scrolls and other works that are part of the bible, when nobody at the time, not the prophets, not the writers, not the transcriptionists, could have understood such information even if they were given it? 2000 year old religious texts were written by people who lived 2000 years ago and knew nothing of science or technology as we know it. How could they have comprehended the vastness of the universe, the idea of other planets, or even the knowledge that every star you can see represents billions that the naked eye can't see, and that each of those stars is a sun like our own, and many have planets of their own, and that life can and almost certainly does exist on many of them? Creation: A fabrication of unsophisticated, uneducated (by modern standards) minds. It was the best they could do with what little real knowledge they had. Evolution: Well supported by a fossil record that is still very sparse in terms of times and places recorded by it. Mere snapshots in time, and few and far between. I know which one I put more credence in. But in any event, there is only ONE ultimate truth. Perhaps we'll learn it, someday. CJ |
If we went by the "It's Just a Theory" people's standard, Creation would be long gone. As DK-Prof described, it doesn't even qualify as a proper theory. |
Oops ! Reason and common sense are not allowed.
|
Just because you disagree with an idea doesn't mean that it is "unreasonable" or lacks "common sense". I do not agree with anything Bostonterrier said above, yet I have plenty of reason and common sense. Steyr specifically said. "This is NOT a religious topic." Why do you guys then go out of your way to insult Christians that have different beliefs than you? Steyr didn't want to discuss religion. He wanted to discuss the theory of evolution. Your comments above are about religion, not the theory of evolution. |
Just another of the endless example of people going out of their way to insult… this time after they were specifically asked not to interject this crap in this tread. Also note there are no moderators pointing this out… another example of some animals being more equal. |
This, essentially, is my belief... |