Do you believe in evolution

[RitalinO.D.]

neither of us can prove our stance

Actually one side has volumes upon volumes of evidence to back it up, theists just choose to ignore it repeatedly. Willful ignorance just amazes me, and makes me a little sad over how blind people can be.

There never has, and never will ever be the slightest shred of evidence for a magic man in the sky. Stories in a 2000 year old book are just that. Stories. Religion is nothing more than a mechanism of control.

 

[tumbleweed41]

There is no evidence for or against a being that is outside of the natural realm.
Science deals with naturalistic, empirical and objective evidence.

Whether or not God exists is irrelevant to the overwhelming observable evidence of biological evolution.

 

[Archer]

Actually one side has volumes upon volumes of evidence to back it up, theists just choose to ignore it repeatedly. Willful ignorance just amazes me, and makes me a little sad over how blind people can be.

There never has, and never will ever be the slightest shred of evidence for a magic man in the sky. Stories in a 2000 year old book are just that. Stories. Religion is nothing more than a mechanism of control.

See below.

There is no evidence for or against a being that is outside of the natural realm.
Science deals with naturalistic, empirical and objective evidence.

Whether or not God exists is irrelevant to the overwhelming observable evidence of biological evolution.

As far as your view of that Book go that is fine. I am in a win win situation because I believe in a power behind that book as I can accept many things from the other side as well.

 

[Valjean]

Where in Vedanta does it say that the Omnipotent cannot interact with His creation once having created them?

No formal, scriptural refutation, Eddy. Just the observation that an omnipotent and omniscient creator should be able to create a universe that didn't need constant tinkering.

Please explain.

1) Evolution does produce order. I think that's fairly obvious, especially inasmuch as creationists are constantly saying there's too much of it to be explainable by natural forces, ie: without magic.
2) You'd expect an omnipotent God to produce an efficient, well-designed creation, but what we find is an inefficient, cobbled-together muddle. A first year engineering student could have produced a more efficient anatomy than what actual biology has created.

 

[Valjean]

I voted "I don't know". And I don't think anyone ever will because none of us were there to see ow things came to be. God says He created everything and one would almost think that settles it but realistically His creative process could have been evolutionary.

There's no need to have 'been there', Muffled. Almost all our science and technology is a product of facts not readily apparent and extrapolations therefrom. If you discount facts and events not directly observed you discount all of science and all of the everyday technology you probable use everyday without even thinking about it.

Interesting that after discounting science and technology as unreliable you state bluntly that "God says..." -- a conclusion with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever!

I think there is some evidence for natural selection. For instance there are no Cro-magnon people around today.

.
Look in the mirror, my friend. (and how would this be evidence for Natural Selection)?

The dinosaurs are gone. However that explains why there is devolution not evolution.

I don't follow. Devolution?
I'm not sure you're grasping the mechanisms involved or what evolution is.

I think there is some evidene for adaptation within species.
owever as far as I know no-one has ever provided a missing link to show that one species evolved into another.

Oh geez -- not this "missing link" thing again. Wasn't that put to bed eighty or ninety years ago?
There are thousands of known transitional species, Muffled. You could even say that every species is transitional.
Every time science discovers a new "missing link" creationists begin clamoring for the two missing links on either side of it.

Also I think the world DNA project is someone's pipe dream as well.

???????

 

[Archer]

There are thousands of known transitional species, Muffled. You could even say that every species is transitional.

You are 100% wrong. Every higher level organism is in transition because if it was not then ToE is shot down

 

[Valjean]

Huh?

 

[Archer]

Huh?

:sorry1: I had a reread and I will not edit because I like to feel stupid from time to time. Keeps me honest. I misread it and my post was a waste I agree with you on most of yours. I thought you were saying that it stopped but every higher level species is in transition.

You did not say that and I have opened my mouth and inserted my foot.

Frubs of apology.

 

[Ubjon]

Yes because its explanatory power and the evidence for it is extremely compelling. As someone else has already quoted nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.

 

[Pegg]

Actually one side has volumes upon volumes of evidence to back it up, theists just choose to ignore it repeatedly. Willful ignorance just amazes me, and makes me a little sad over how blind people can be.

are you aware of what the odds are, that non living matter can make the leap to living matter?

or do you know how long it would take unguided evolution to produce us?

Unfortunately for the theory of evolution, even the huge number of 15billion years is not long enough according to the statistics of probability.

and as Richard Dawkins says..."measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability"

 

[Noaidi]

...or do you know how long it would take unguided evolution to produce us?

What is 'unguided' evolution? Evolution is a function of a populations' ability to survive within, and adapt to, a given environmental situation.

 

[Pegg]

What is 'unguided' evolution? Evolution is a function of a populations' ability to survive within, and adapt to, a given environmental situation.

unguided as in 'naturally driven' as opposed to being 'directed' or 'pre programmed'

 

[Noaidi]

unguided as in 'naturally driven' as opposed to being 'directed' or 'pre programmed'

'Naturally driven'? I don't think biologists would have a problem with that term. They may have a problem, though, with your original term 'unguided'. The two are very different. Evolution works with what's available in terms of alleles. Those alleles that are disadvantagous are selected against so, in that sense, evolution is guided in terms of favouring advantageous alleles.

 

[Pegg]

'Naturally driven'? I don't think biologists would have a problem with that term. They may have a problem, though, with your original term 'unguided'. The two are very different. Evolution works with what's available in terms of alleles. Those alleles that are disadvantagous are selected against so, in that sense, evolution is guided in terms of favouring advantageous alleles.

yeah i get ya,

but still, those probability statistics present a problem in terms of how much life there is and how it became so diverse in what the statistics show, is too short a time.

 

[Noaidi]

yeah i get ya,

but still, those probability statistics present a problem in terms of how much life there is and how it became so diverse in what the statistics show, is too short a time.

You got any references for the statistics? Remember, just because 'statistically' it may be improbable doesn't mean that it IS improbable.

 

[Pegg]

You got any references for the statistics? Remember, just because 'statistically' it may be improbable doesn't mean that it IS improbable.

well that may be true, but according to Dawkins, it is statistical probability that determines somethings believability.
So it works just as easily for evolution as it does for the disbelief in God

But anyway, im referring to the calculations of probability of Prof. A. Engelberg used in the book by Dr Schroeder 'the science of God'...the calculations are based on the numbers of genes and proteins and the possibility of successful mutations occurring at the correct spot in the genome to produce beneficial changes.

 

[Noaidi]

...in the book by Dr Schroeder 'the science of God'...the calculations are based on the numbers of genes and proteins and the possibility of successful mutations occurring at the correct spot in the genome to produce beneficial changes.

Gerald Schroeder?

"Uniting staunchly opposed viewpoints into one groundbreaking new perspective, this startling and timely work illuminates the complete interdependence between Biblical reports and modern scientific discoveries. Comparing key events from the Old Testament with the most current findings of biochemists, paleontologists, and physicists, Gerald Schroeder resolves age-old debates about miracles, the origins of the universe, the first life on Earth, and the meaning of free will. Through thoughtful, engaging discussions, even using Einstein's theory of relativity to validate a six-day creation timetable, The Science of God ultimately proves both Darwin and creationists right."

Seems like he's reached his conclusion already...

 

[Pegg]

Gerald Schroeder?

"Uniting staunchly opposed viewpoints into one groundbreaking new perspective, this startling and timely work illuminates the complete interdependence between Biblical reports and modern scientific discoveries. Comparing key events from the Old Testament with the most current findings of biochemists, paleontologists, and physicists, Gerald Schroeder resolves age-old debates about miracles, the origins of the universe, the first life on Earth, and the meaning of free will. Through thoughtful, engaging discussions, even using Einstein's theory of relativity to validate a six-day creation timetable, The Science of God ultimately proves both Darwin and creationists right."

Seems like he's reached his conclusion already...

he actually believes in evolution...just not in its current model. I dont agree with a lot of what he says when it comes to the bible, for instance he doest believe that Adam was the only human created as the bible indicates. But im still interested in how he manages to beleive both evolution and in God the Creator.

 

[dawny0826]

I believe in Evolution. Once I started to learn about it properly, there was no way I could continue to deny it.

I couldn't say it better than you have.

 

[Amill]

Evolution is the only explanation that makes any real sense to me. There's just a lot of things that I'd have to make excuses and guesses about if I were to believe in creation. Such as god giving manatees toenails so that humans could make them look pretty!
http://w3.shorecrest.org/~Lisa_Peck...ates/mammals/mammalwp/barbara/fingernails.jpg

How else exactly would you explain the existence of toenails on an aquatic mammal if not Evolution? God commit a booboo? So far the poll shows that 92% so far accept Evolution, I think this suggests that people who come to forums such as this one tend to be more open-minded and able to consider different explanations and possibilities and the evidence to support them. The numbers show that people who do that are more likely to feel that the Theory of Evolution is a more likely explanation for the diversity of life on earth.