[Goober5000]

Evolution has not been proved.  Neither has creationism.  The acceptance of either one requires faith - granted, evolution a lot less faith than creationism.  Baldly challenging a widely-held tenet of science while making little effort to argue your case is a poor way to win converts.

Another thing is that microevolution is all over the place - most promiently in bacteria.  People see this and automatically believe that macroevolution is true also.  They aren't willing to give the matter further thought because they think it isn't needed.

Jesus said that the world would know us by the way we conduct our lives.  Anyone can argue - some people are very good at it.  But a Christian's life sets him apart.  At least, it does in Asia, India, and Africa - American Christians in particular have become very worldly.

By the way, microevolution is not "evolution" in the ideal sense.  While bacteria adapt to changing conditions quite effectively, it happens with a loss of genetic information through mutation - not a gain.

[Bobboau]

evolution is not faith, I beleve it only becase I have seen it before my eyes, you close you're eyes, I will not force you to open them, as I would not want you to force mine closed

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Goober5000
By the way, microevolution is not "evolution" in the ideal sense.  While bacteria adapt to changing conditions quite effectively, it happens with a loss of genetic information through mutation - not a gain.

Actually, evolution does not require an increase in genetic information. And what else is bacteria adapting but evolution in it's purest, Darwinian sense? The bacteria's DNA is altered (in other words, it mutates) due to stimuli inside it's enviroment, which results in a change. This change does not necessarily increase or decrease the amount of genetic material within the organism.
The change may or may not be expressed within the organism. If it is expressed, it may allow the bacteria to function more effectively, allowing it to reproduce in greater numbers. It may also negatively affect its function, which would cause it to reproduce in smaller quantities.
What else is this but "Survival of the fittest"? The organism more suited to the enviroment will eventually cause the extinction of the organism that is more poorly suited.

However, assuming a open worldview, evolution does not, in fact, disprove Creationism. All it disproves is a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.
It is quite possible to combine both Evolution and Creationism. If we start with the assumption that the universe began with a single cluster of molecules containing all the mass and energy of our entire universe, it leads to the question of what caused the universal constants to function just right for life to be produced?
That is the niche which cannot be filled by Science. The question of "How?" is the role of science. The question of "Why?", however, is purely the domain of Philosophy and Theology. And possibly, the question of "Who?".....

I'll end this post with a famous line which applies to this entire discussion:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet, Act I, Scene V

[Bobboau]

complexity != more evolved
more complex things have more that can go wrong a more stream lined design is oftem more efishent and more reliable and thus oftine more 'evolved',
interesting thought; everything that is alive currently is just as evolved as everything else, you are no more 'evolved' than bacteria, yes you are more complex and have greater capabilitys, but the fact is a bacteria (or more apropriately a whole freaking lot of them) is more likely to cause the extinction of us as we are of them, so how can you claimed to be more evolved than them when the only reason they don't anialate you now is becase they have evolved to take advantage of us like paracites rather than mearly consume us (super preditors when not in the presence of properly adapted prey die as they kil off there food suply)

[karajorma]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
[BYou guy's are totally missing the point. My point is that evolution is a faith not a science. No one has ever seen a kind change into another kind (think cat and dog two different kinds). [/B]

No. You miss the point. Whenever creationists start feeling threatened by scientific arguements they always resort to calling evolution a faith. This is both stupid and incorrect.

 Evolution is NOT a faith. Evolution IS science. It follows all the rules involved in science. Every single theory and law of evolution has been published in peer reviewed journals. Show me a single case of anything in evolutionary theory that doesn't follow the rules of science.
Evolutionary theory has taken no steps that weren't involved in every single other field of science yet because creationists are threatened by the arguements of people who understand evolution they feel they need to seperate evolution from the rest of the scientific world and present it as an unproven theory or a faith.

Sadly for them evolution is no more an unproven theory or faith than gravity.

Secondly much of the arguement I see presented here is presented from a standpoint of huge ignorance of evolutionary theory. Try understanding it before you tell people who do that it is wrong.

[diamondgeezer]

Snoj, evolution can be witnessed in labs around the world. Sure, you're not going to see macroevolution unless you live for a few undred thousand years - or you accept that neanderthal fossils and the like are our ancestors' remains. But what I think worries the religions is that science has proven that there is no difference between the processes which control our development and the development of microscopic bacteria.

[Zeronet]

There is quite a lot of geological evidence that the world is very old.

[J.F.K.]

I don't know why people usually don't consider that (from a Christian viewpoint) God drove creation by what we call evolution. Seems to make a fair amount of sense to me.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by karajorma
Sadly for them evolution is no more an unproven theory or faith than gravity.

But there is no gravity! It's God pushing is down!!!

[TheCelestialOne]

Personally I don't give a rats ass how the world/universe was created... For all I care it started out as Gods turd in the holy sewers of heaven.

I live now and I'll die somewhere in the future. No use figuring out how the world came to be. IMO its better to look for a way to keep it alive and not end up like Mars.

[HotSnoJ]

well in that perspective, no-one ever saw god create the universe either

Wow, you're finally catching on.

Au contraire, my friend. In actuality, we have seen cats and dogs evolve over the last few millenia. Specifically, we have seen dogs evolve from Canis lupis, (the grey wolf) to Canis familiaris, the common dog. Admittedly, this was selective breeding as opposed to natural selection, but the same truth remains. We have caused wolves to evolve into dogs.    And if you want natural selection, just take a look at diseases. The cold, for example. People, as you know, develop antibodies when exposed to a virus. In a world without evolution, the cold would swiftly be caused to become extinct, as all people would develop antibodies to it. But we have suffered from colds for thousands of years. The reason? The cold mutates, causing the antibodies to be ineffective. The cold evolves to beat our protections. And unlike the example of the dog, this one IS natural selection.

I'd like to point out that wolfs and dogs are canines, as in the same kind. They can still mate and have offspring with each other. And the cold, it's still a cold, not hot or a lukewarm, it's still a cold

Originally posted by Bobboau
evolution is not faith, I beleve it only becase I have seen it before my eyes, you close you're eyes, I will not force you to open them, as I would not want you to force mine closed

"Evidence does not equal proof. It is how you interpert the evidence." I have pointed out already the evolution as well as creationism are faiths.

No. You miss the point. Whenever creationists start feeling threatened by scientific arguements they always resort to calling evolution a faith. This is both stupid and incorrect.

But it is a faith.

Evolution is NOT a faith. Evolution IS science. It follows all the rules involved in science. Every single theory and law of evolution has been published in peer reviewed journals. Show me a single case of anything in evolutionary theory that doesn't follow the rules of science.   Evolutionary theory has taken no steps that weren't involved in every single other field of science yet because creationists are threatened by the arguements of people who understand evolution they feel they need to seperate evolution from the rest of the scientific world and present it as an unproven theory or a faith.

Science is evolution as much as creationism is science, science can backups the claims of evolutionists or creationists adepending on how you interpute the evidence. Science can however deliver 'evidence' to support a claim but we cannot tell for sure through science how the world came into being. Science observes and with those observations it tests them in a controled envierment then with those findings people use it in technology.

Snoj, evolution can be witnessed in labs around the world. Sure, you're not going to see macroevolution unless you live for a few undred thousand years - or you accept that neanderthal fossils and the like are our ancestors' remains. But what I think worries the religions is that science has proven that there is no difference between the processes which control our development and the development of microscopic bacteria.

Thank you for helping me with my argument for pointing me to a new way of looking at it. You see you are pointing out that I'd have to live a long time to see evolution happening. But since I obviously won't live for a few hundred thousand years and recorded human history isn't that old either. How on earth then I am to tell if evolutionism or creationism is true? And please don't point out your precious bones because they have been proven to be human or ape and/or a hoax. Ok now onto bacteria and such. I'm going to site Linux for an analogy. I'm siteing it since it's dev is documented and windows isn't. Would you say Linux 2.0 is the same as 3.0? No of course not. But is it still Linux? Acording to your logic Linux 3.0 is a totally new and original OS with part of the same name as Linux 2.0. I know that's not the best analogy but most never are.



[EDIT]Almost forgot this. What evidence would you people accept from me to  support my views?

[Black Wolf]

Look, do me a favour. For the sake of whatever vestiges of respect you still have left, go get Sesquipedalian. At leats he argues religion with a modicum of knowledge. Failing that, remember that it's better to stay silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Lets get on with this shall we?

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I'd like to point out that wolfs and dogs are canines, as in the same kind. They can still mate and have offspring with each other. And the cold, it's still a cold, not hot or a lukewarm, it's still a cold

Actually, naturally, Wolves (Canis Lupis) and Dogs (Canis Familiaris) Can’t naturally have offspring together. That's one of the defining characteristics of a species (That's the funny name that comes after the Genus - the one that's actually different). And as for the cold, yes, it's still a cold, but it's radically different to the cold of a hundred years ago, and more so of that from two hundred. The symptoms are similar, but its resistance to the various antibodies in the human body, and its virulence levels are all different. It changes to suit its environment, and to penetrate its victims more efficiently. This is evolution. It does this because the ones that are capable of surviving infect people do so, because they are more resistant, more virulent etc. Those that are not do not survive. This is natural selection, and its going on all over the world, right now.

"Evidence does not equal proof. It is how you interpert the evidence." I have pointed out already the evolution as well as creationism are faiths.[/b]

Yes, you did point it out. Now, make it actually make some small degree of sense. Evidence is the defining characteristic of proof. Hell, the two words are practically interchangeable; the differences are at best very subtle.

Perhaps these two definitions will be useful for your continued attempts to blunder your way against the raging torrent of evidence and good sense.

Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

TheoryA set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

But it is a faith.[/b]

No it isn't. I'd go into more detail, but a five word rebuttal that basically says "No, you're wrong I'm right" hardly warrants it.

Science is evolution as much as creationism is science, science can backups the claims of evolutionists or creationists adepending on how you interpute the evidence. Science can however deliver 'evidence' to support a claim but we cannot tell for sure through science how the world came into being. Science observes and with those observations it tests them in a controled envierment then with those findings people use it in technology.[/b]

Did your parents make you go to church during science class? Your perception of science is very, very skewed it would seem, making me believe you picked it up after class from a bunch of kids milling about outside. Science is the accumulation of data through observation and experiments. Its used for much more than technology though - ever hear of biology? What about Anthropology? Geology? Ring any bells? All non technological sciences. And the fact that you could even dare to say that Creationism is a science is beyond stupidity. Creationism is the blind following of the teachings of a book that has its roots in fifth hand stories from thousands of years ago. It is not supported by empirical nor experimental evidence, it has no need to prove itself against other competing theories as it actively discourages any form of disbelief and worse yet, it refuses to allow itself to be adjusted to fit whatever new evidence comes to light. Creationism and religion has been the greatest enemy that science has ever known. It has held back mans advancements more than you could possibly comprehend. The two don't belong in the same library together, let alone the same damn sentence.

And finally (for this particular piece of rubbish anyway) no, science can not tell us for any absolute certainty how the Earth was formed. What it can, and has done is develop a theory, not a blindly accepted truth, but a theory, that fits all the evidence we have available today. It also complies with natural laws, something that "God said be" doesn't really do, in my book.

Thank you for helping me with my argument for pointing me to a new way of looking at it. You see you are pointing out that I'd have to live a long time to see evolution happening. But since I obviously won't live for a few hundred thousand years and recorded human history isn't that old either. How on earth then I am to tell if evolutionism or creationism is true?[/b]

See below. We do have recorded human history going back far longer than that - people may not have written it down, but its there, and its thanks to science that we can read the fossil code. You obviously cant think like that, because if any knowledge doesn't come out of a book full of fifth hand hearsay and about a dozen revisions, it obviously can't be true. And as for how you can tell, maybe you could start by observing the world around you, looking for evidence to support either theory... or would that be heresy?

And please don't point out your precious bones because they have been proven to be human or ape and/or a hoax. [/b]

You know, I was planning to leave this thread alone until I saw this. I was more than willing to lurk and read and laugh as you fought just about every member on this board smarter than you are (and those are long odds, believe me). But after this, I couldn’t sit still. You're on my turf now.

You really don't have any idea do you? None whatsoever. Give me two examples where ancient bones have been proven to be anything except true evolutionary stages of the human race. Hell, I'll start you off. Piltdown man. Famous evolutionary Hoax. Now, find another one. Among all the thousands of bones, find me one other hoax or fake. And as for Human and Ape, can you even define "Human" or "Ape" when you're talking about bones that can be over 4 million years old? Do you understand the points at which the evolution of the human species changes, those incredibly ancient moments in geological time where the most profound changes occurred that moved the human race out of apehood? Didn't think so. There are thousands of skeletal remains scattered all over the world, all with defining characteristics which can be linked together into the complex chain (or more accurately web I suppose, but I wouldn't want to cloud your mind with complex concepts like that one) of human evolution. We can chart our rise to bipedalism, the changes in the size and shape of our skulls, the increasing complexities of our brains. We know more about the evolution of the human race than probably any other species in the history of the planet and you dare to cheapen those countless hours of painstaking anthropological research by lumping them into man or ape? You are below contempt. I challenge you to provide even the slightest bit of proof that allows you to say that this process did not occur.
Twit.

Ok now onto bacteria and such. I'm going to site Linux for an analogy. I'm siteing it since it's dev is documented and windows isn't. Would you say Linux 2.0 is the same as 3.0? No of course not. But is it still Linux? Acording to your logic Linux 3.0 is a totally new and original OS with part of the same name as Linux 2.0. I know that's not the best analogy but most never are.[/b]

Of course they're not the same. They're similar. Version 3 follows on from version 2. It has more capabilities, but these were put in place due to demands that version 2 could not fulfil. Eventually the new species... I mean version 3 will completely replace version 2 because it’s better suited to its environment.

You know, that process seems... familiar somehow, wouldn't you say?

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ


"Evidence does not equal proof. It is how you interpert the evidence." I have pointed out already the evolution as well as creationism are faiths.

But it is a faith.

You've not pointed out anything, you've made baseless statements of pure nonsense and evidence is proof. Of course, creationists ignore things such as fact or proof.

A definition of evidence is "To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove"

[Flipside]

One interesting Question is, of course, if theres no such thing as evolution and these fossils are put there as a 'test of faith', why are we now finding that some of these 'tests' are alive and well about 2 miles under the ocean?

Flipside

[phreak]

all this discussion on religion makes me want to watch Dogma

[Flipside]

LOL!

'So, how do you know I'm an Angel, apart from the Fiery entrance and the larger than average wingspan?'

Flipside

[Rictor]

My entry would be to write "Evolution is right. It just is, trust me" in a book and mail it to them, with the note attached "This is as far as you've gotten, right?"

[Ace]

Originally posted by Styxx


But there is no gravity! It's God pushing is down!!!

I can see every flag in the middle east now having: "God is Gravity" instead of "God is Great" on them.

Anyway this is very applicable to this thread:
GOD, PLEASE PROTECT ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS

[karajorma]

Snoj. Take a good long look at my earlier comment about arguing from a point of ignorance.

 Seriously what arrogance you must have to insist that you are correct and nobel prize winners must be wrong despite the fact you know nothing about evolution.

Would you go up to Steven Hawking and tell him that he's wrong about Black Holes? Actually strike that. If it said so in the bible you almost certainly would.

Do yourself a favour. Buy yourself a copy of The Selfish Gene and read it from cover to cover. Then come back and argue with me once you have the slightest inkling what you're talking about.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Ace

GOD, PLEASE PROTECT ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS