Do You Believe that Evolution is True?

[The Voice of Reason]

are you growing up or down tvor?

If our growth is uni-directional, my only hope is that our paths lie in opposite directions. I'll let that take me where it may.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Pah]

...*remembers 4yr old nephew repeating "why" even after the question has been answered*...
are you growing up or down tvor?

Hehehe. I think he learned the technique from another poster to the thread. One who now opposes others using the same technique.

Bob

 

[The Voice of Reason]

HelpMe -

Pah is correct. I was only parroting your unceasing use of the phrase.

TVOR

 

[HelpMe]

which is very mature of you two, grats.

 

[painted wolf]

Rearing Arabian- We can also tell marsupials arn't related closely to us by differences in the skeleton... Marsupials are built differently on the inside dispite the outside apprearance. But we also have differences in DNA. Marsupials are native to Australia and South America (save for the lonely virginia opposum, who lives in N.America.) and fossil evidence from Antarctica. Yes, there are mouse like possums and dog like possums but for the most part they are very different. You would never mistake a kangaroo and a deer, or a bilby and a rabbit.

As for Austalopiticus, there are more similarites in than just the teeth and pelvis. Legs, hands, feet, spine, ribs and arms come to mind.

also from you last link

There is as yet no definitive evidence of Neanderthals and humans being at exactly the same place at the same time. "We don't have evidence of them directly meeting or coming into contact with each other in Croatia or southern Germany," Trinkaus says. "But we know they weren't all that far apart at the same time."

The truth is that many questions are still out there to be answered. The joy of science is that with more evidence, wich will be found eventually, we can work tword a more complete view of our distant past.

wa:do

 

[HelpMe]

remember above all that finding living life in space is the equivelant of that life coming from non living matter.

 

[painted wolf]

we have found the basic componants of life in deep space.
We have gone over this before or have you forgotten?

We may yet find life out there, Europa, the clouds of Venus and eaven the deep polar ice of Mars may hold life. Missions are being planned to find such hidden life and in the next decade or so, we could be talking about aliens.

wa:do

 

[Valjean]

Arabian -- Armstrong's article is no proof of anything -- though it clearly illustrates his ignorance of biology.

"Evolutionists say there is no God." -- How did he come up with this absurd assertion?

"...Gradually evolved from simple viruses and amoebas..." -- Armstrong clearly has no idea what a virus is. They are in no way alive, and can't even exist without the genetic machinery of an already existing living thing to assemble them.

"Can evolution be proved?" Many seem to think so..." -- Armstrong doesn't understand the scientific process or know what proof is. Nothing, outside of mathematics, is proved. Proof doesn't exist in scientific investigation and no scientist ever asserted it does. Science can only accumulate evidence and let people draw their own conclusions (theories).

"But evolution is not proved -- it is merely a theory..." -- Armstrong does not know what a theory is. A theory is not an incomplete fact. A theory is an explanation of the relationship between a series of observed facts. When the proposed explanation is supported to the point that a reasonable person accepts it as true, it becomes a fact -- and a theory.

The Sun is at the center of the solar system and the Earth revolves around it. --- A fact, and, a theory.

The Earth is not flat, but spherical. --- A fact, and, a theory.

Single celled bacteria are capable of causing disease. --- A fact, and, a theory.

 

[Druidus]

All this talk of genetic similarity... It's funny though. Something like 40-50% of our DNA is identical to that of a daisy.

(Some, perhaps, more then others... )

 

[The Voice of Reason]

which is very mature of you two, grats.

How can someone possibly miss the irony of their position this badly? My mother once told me that if you have to explain a joke to someone, they will not enjoy it as much as those that are bright enough to "get it" on their own.
It would have been nice if all three of us understood what was going on, but sadly, it was not to be.

TVOR

 

[painted wolf]

Druidus, I think you may have a wonky number there... we are 60% the same as a mouse, and 2.5% chicken.... I think we would clearly be less plant-ish.

where did you find your statistic?

wa:do

 

[LISA63]

Evolution is certainly a better explanation than any alternative that's been discussed before on this board.

The fundamentals of evolution are proven whereas there is no sufficent evidence for a creator let alone the acts of a creator.

Bob

If the fundamentals are proven then why is it still a theory?
according to a few of the teachers I have heard from, say evolutions ground work is falling apart the more we learn about biochemistry. I have read many papers where scientist comment on the lengths they must go to shoehorn the facts to fit evolutionary theory.
If there was as much money offered to prove creation as there is for evolution I think there would not be as much arguement for evolution.

 

[Pah]

If the fundamentals are proven then why is it still a theory?
according to a few of the teachers I have heard from, say evolutions ground work is falling apart the more we learn about biochemistry. I have read many papers where scientist comment on the lengths they must go to shoehorn the facts to fit evolutionary theory.
If there was as much money offered to prove creation as there is for evolution I think there would not be as much arguement for evolution.

I am wondering if you have a misconception about how weak or strong a theory is. The Theory of Relativity is a cornerstone to much of the science being done today. It is only a theory as is the Theory of Quatum Mechanics but both being of immense importance.

Are you perhaps talking about abiogenesis instead of evolution?

As to the papers you've read - I was wondering if you could provide citations for those studies. I personally have never heard of a peer-reviewed paper that contains opinion. If the conclusion in a paper does not match the facts of the paper, it would not be a scientific paper. So, please, see if you can provide some of your reading.

The supposition (not even reaching your apparent conception of theory) that creation is the answer and we only need to throw more money at it to prove it lacks the understanding that a creator, any creator, must be proved before the creator is tied to an act of creation. There must be an identified agent and truthfully nothing has ever been proved about the existence of any "creating" agent. A tremendous amount of time and effort has already been expended in trying to do so but no proof has been forthcoming. Of course, it is still useful to assume a creator.

Bob

 

[Valjean]

(I'm getting tired of making the same point over and over).

Lisa -- A theory is not an incomplete or unproven fact. It is an inference about the relationship of a group of observed facts. A fact is a theory with enough evidence that a reasonable person would accept it. Nb: a theory can also be a fact. "Germs cause disease" is a theory -- and a fact. "The "Earth is spherical, not flat" is a theory -- and a fact.

Creation is an entirely different thing from evolution. It can't be "proved." Creationism is the theory that the universe was created by magic. It does not speculate on the mechanis

Evolution is the word we use to describe change in biological forms, eg: how a wolf turned into a poodle. It is concerned with the mechanism of the change, not the author. There are many "theories of evolution".

Evolution is not "falling apart." It is a fact, and no emerging data contradict it. New data may refine various aspects of the theory, but nothing denies the fact that change happens.

 

[anders]

There must be something basically wrong about the US system of education. In the unlikely case that the voice of a "creationist" were heard in Sweden, I wouldn't be surprised to find that an official investigation was started to find out which school had failed in its obligation to teach facts.

As a matter of fact, we don't even need to use terms like "creationist" and "evoolutionist", as it is assumed that all school leavers have been taught correct facts of nature.

Nothing is perfect, of course. Once in a while there will be a Jehova's Witness, but apart from those, I can't imagine any Swede not believing in evolution.

There are simply no facts that even hint at a better explanation than evolution, so that's what I perceive as the best theory. And please consider Seyorni's explanation of what "theory" means.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Sounds like I might need to move to Sweden.

TVOR

 

[goodjewishboy]

Why can't a Divine force use evolution as a means of altering His creation as he sees fit? I can't understand why they can't coexist?!:banghead3

Because that makes too much sense.

 

[HelpMe]

we have found the basic componants of life in deep space.
We have gone over this before or have you forgotten?

this proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that those componants came from lesser materials.the basic componants of life have naturally become living matter how many times?k

Why can't a Divine force use evolution as a means of altering His creation as he sees fit? I can't understand why they can't coexist?!:banghead3

for the same reason a divine force can't create life in motion.

 

[painted wolf]

helpme- when we find life on Mars, Europa's seas, or Venus' clouds I'll let you know. Untill then at least once.

Lisa- What do you think about Prions? Wierd little non-living strands of protiens that replicate, mutate and form naturally from inorganic material? They are not 'living' per say because they do not resperate or matabolize, but they are a basic first step tword life.

wa:do

 

[Ark]

Scientific evidence shows that humans do indeed share a common ancestor with the ape.

Current score: Evolution: 1 Creationism: 0

Scientific evidence shows that humans do indeed share a common genetics with a lot of species. Ancestry? If humans are a hybrid, that goes without saying. The truth is that in the creation process, the mammalic bodies of apes were abandoned for a breeding toward a more reptile incorporated form.

Actually, links have been found. This kind of goes along with the first idea, but we'll give evolution another point anyhow:

Links HAVE been found, but not the missing one that unmistakenly associates it specifically with evolution.

Evolution: 2 Creationism: 0


First of all, I would love to see a reference for this information. Secondly, I have just a few objections:
1. There is no evidence of humans ever living 'several thousands of years'

Not sure why you changed it from several HUNDRED (as recorded in the Old Testament), to several thousand.

2. There is no evidence that humans used to abnormally interested in food

Nothing abnormal from the perspective which is readily seen. The metamorphic differences can only fully be understood by "breatharians" or those who have dispensed with the addiction. A practice which is far more dangerous than overcomming heroin addiction. But who said Salvation was an easy task?

3. There is no evidence that the human race ever had a genetic insanity problem due to incest

Because the entire human race did NOT. I referred only to one small group, most of who did not even survive as a cultural group for too long.

4. There is no evidence that the 'godless', (and by godless, I am of course referring to those who did not belive in your god, because I assure you that all ancient peoples had gods in one form or another.), had greater sex drives than the 'holy'

I assure you that many DID have multiple "gods" because (like the Bible explicitly states)...they never knew God. Sex, in a divine or rational sense is for pro-creative purposes ONLY. There is a geophysical and subsiquent physiobiological reason for life-forms on this planet to require irrational amounts of it. Those who do not understand have no knowledge of the full necessity for Salvation from this planet. And many who claim faith do not possess enough knowledge to be more than thinly religious...no matter how large their cathedrals.

5. Even if people did revert to bestiality back in the day, it is not possible for a human to breed with an ape and produce offspring.

Says who?

6. People do not die from a 'lack of moral background', especially not back in those days when instinct was still king

You'd be surprised. That instinct falls short in ways when there is no honor or love in a societies developement. Quite often they are destroyed by those on a greater moral foundation...often out of self-defense.

There are many today who are of solid beginnings, but have historically been reduced to no more than the blind being led by the blind.

7. If you think that ancient peoples paid a whole lot of attention to, 'natural matrimonial sense of male/female partnership', you're fooling yourself.

You are mis-informed. There is no marriage in Heaven. Marriage is a human concept. It is approved of by the Hierarchy because it is a good tool for the expediency of Salvation. It helps maintain order in a sexually oriented world.

Again, many of these point may be cleared up when you present your source.

The Universal Hierarchy for one. Personal history books translated from ancient scrolls for another. Don't ask for access to them. Suffice it to say that I am the link between the Hierarchy and whoever is wise enough to take advantage. I advise an open mind rather than 'slamming the door' (so to speak). The thing about instincts is that they can either be right or they can be wrong.