evolution could be wrong

[Mr Cheese]

shock and anger from the evolutionists and glee from the creationists? sorry to disappoint

my point is that while evolution may not be 100% correct it is still the best model available.

take physics as an example. lord kelvin (the person who calculated absolute zero) said at the turn of the centuary "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." that was just before quantum theory and relativity were published.

this shows that while we may think something is 100% true there is still a chance something could pop up and bite us on the arse.

I quite agree

of course it doesnt deal with anythign but the physical though
and if you have no experience with anything beyond the physical, then its just fine and dandy

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm surprised that people don't see this a problem. We have a theory, the ToE, that cannot be observed or repeated and scientists don't want but one theory introduced.

But scientists have observed natural selection. Not only that, they have created the essential "soup" that genetic material came from. Even today, we see natural selection in bacteria that has become resistant to anti-biotics, breeds of fish that have hind-fins if they are in an environment with predators, and even prides of lions are starting to become adept swimmers to have both land and water as potential hunting grounds.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Great - anything weird points MoF to a creator.

How about this:

It's weird how that one guy is wearing red. Is he the creator?

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

I'm surprised that people don't see this a problem. We have a theory, the ToE, that cannot be observed or repeated and scientists don't want but one theory introduced.

Cannot be observed nor repeated? Are you aware of the features of a scientific theory? I'll assume not and so they are being falsifiable and testable. We know TOE is a scientific theory and so in theory it should be falsifiable and testable. In practice, we can test it and we can observe it, either through looking at fossil records, having field observations or doing lab studies with organisms such as bacteria. For a more immediate observation of evolution, bacteria can be observed evolving, as can fruit flies and other organisms. Do you honestly think that the scientific community would accept TOE because it sounds cool even if it cannot be tested or seen in any way? Regardless of how cool it may sound, if it cannot have theoretical background, testable or observable, then it's not going to be considered, however, it can be testable, has theoretical backgrounds and is observable. Evidence has been given in this thread and others but do you simply ignore it and stick to your guns of sheer ignorance, and move onto some other aspect of TOE or science? I wouldn't have a problem if you tried to analyze an aspect of TOE with having prior knowledge of it (a good amount though) and weren't understanding something about it. However, trying such ignorant attempts at refuting it when you don't understand a thing about it yet pretending you do even after evidence has been given time and time again is what I think is pretty pathetic. :ignore:

But answer me these two questions:

1) If evolution remains correct, then how does that impede your religious beliefs? Science and religion have two completely different, independent paradigms.
2) Let's suppose that for the nature of this question evolution was wrong. That doesn't do a thing to prove anything about whether or not your religious views are right or wrong. So why do seem so determined to prove it wrong? So what if it's wrong, it doesn't do anything for your religious beliefs. It's like saying that since a book on human anatomy is wrong, then a book on how to write paragraphs is wrong. There's no relation at all. So why?

 

[sonofskeptish]

It points to a creator IMO.

Why is it that whenever a religious person doesn't understand something, they need to give credit to a creator?

 

[Man of Faith]

Cannot be observed nor repeated? Are you aware of the features of a scientific theory? I'll assume not and so they are being falsifiable and testable. We know TOE is a scientific theory and so in theory it should be falsifiable and testable. In practice, we can test it and we can observe it, either through looking at fossil records, having field observations or doing lab studies with organisms such as bacteria. For a more immediate observation of evolution, bacteria can be observed evolving, as can fruit flies and other organisms. Do you honestly think that the scientific community would accept TOE because it sounds cool even if it cannot be tested or seen in any way? Regardless of how cool it may sound, if it cannot have theoretical background, testable or observable, then it's not going to be considered, however, it can be testable, has theoretical backgrounds and is observable. Evidence has been given in this thread and others but do you simply ignore it and stick to your guns of sheer ignorance, and move onto some other aspect of TOE or science? I wouldn't have a problem if you tried to analyze an aspect of TOE with having prior knowledge of it (a good amount though) and weren't understanding something about it. However, trying such ignorant attempts at refuting it when you don't understand a thing about it yet pretending you do even after evidence has been given time and time again is what I think is pretty pathetic. :ignore:

But answer me these two questions:

1) If evolution remains correct, then how does that impede your religious beliefs? Science and religion have two completely different, independent paradigms.
2) Let's suppose that for the nature of this question evolution was wrong. That doesn't do a thing to prove anything about whether or not your religious views are right or wrong. So why do seem so determined to prove it wrong? So what if it's wrong, it doesn't do anything for your religious beliefs. It's like saying that since a book on human anatomy is wrong, then a book on how to write paragraphs is wrong. There's no relation at all. So why?

1) You seem to have a lot of catching up to do on the evolution vs creation debates. Let me help you out. There are different definitions of evolution. For example natural selection and adaptation are considered evolution, some people look at cars and say "look how far they have evolved", and then there is common descent or common ancestry of all species. The only evolution that I don't buy and that goes with most creationists I assume is the one that cannot be observed, repeated, or demonstrated and that is common ancestry of all species. That is not science but imagination.

2) I don't hold my religious beliefs for no reason at all. I had faith at first yes, but I am convinced it is correct by the evidence and my own personal experiences. I look around and see God's creation, I see the differences between man and animals and plants, I see the differences between men and women, everything I see validates the Bible.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

everything I see validates the Bible.

Yet the bible has plenty that can not be validated.

 

[McBell]

1) You seem to have a lot of catching up to do on the evolution vs creation debates. Let me help you out. There are different definitions of evolution. For example natural selection and adaptation are considered evolution, some people look at cars and say "look how far they have evolved", and then there is common descent or common ancestry of all species. The only evolution that I don't buy and that goes with most creationists I assume is the one that cannot be observed, repeated, or demonstrated and that is common ancestry of all species. That is not science but imagination.

Wow, nice Humpty Dumpty job.

2) I don't hold my religious beliefs for no reason at all. I had faith at first yes, but I am convinced it is correct by the evidence and my own personal experiences. I look around and see God's creation, I see the differences between man and animals and plants, I see the differences between men and women, everything I see validates the Bible.

Yes, it has already been proven that people will see whatever they want when they look hard enough.

 

[Autodidact]

1) You seem to have a lot of catching up to do on the evolution vs creation debates. Let me help you out. There are different definitions of evolution. For example natural selection and adaptation are considered evolution, some people look at cars and say "look how far they have evolved", and then there is common descent or common ancestry of all species. The only evolution that I don't buy and that goes with most creationists I assume is the one that cannot be observed, repeated, or demonstrated and that is common ancestry of all species. That is not science but imagination.

Wow, considering your wilful and deliberate ignorance, your arrogance in purporting to school someone else is amazing. Since this is a debate about the Theory of Evolution, (ToE) the only type of evolution we are concerned with is the biological sense, ToE. And we know that you don't buy it, so what?

2) I don't hold my religious beliefs for no reason at all. I had faith at first yes, but I am convinced it is correct by the evidence and my own personal experiences. I look around and see God's creation, I see the differences between man and animals and plants, I see the differences between men and women, everything I see validates the Bible.

That's funny. You've told us that the actual evidence of common ancestry directly violates the Bible. Huh.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

1) You seem to have a lot of catching up to do on the evolution vs creation debates. Let me help you out. There are different definitions of evolution. For example natural selection and adaptation are considered evolution, some people look at cars and say "look how far they have evolved", and then there is common descent or common ancestry of all species. The only evolution that I don't buy and that goes with most creationists I assume is the one that cannot be observed, repeated, or demonstrated and that is common ancestry of all species. That is not science but imagination.

No, you seem to have a lot more catching up to do in terms of understanding evolution other than concerning yourself with the issue of common ancestry. But in case you haven't noticed, we like to discuss TOE and since it's a given on both sides that the common ancestry of all species cannot yet be determined, harping on that is pointless. So instead of pointing out givens, why not debate the rest of it or would you rather return to this given, hoping that somehow it's going to do some good. The only thing that's imagination is that.

2) I don't hold my religious beliefs for no reason at all. I had faith at first yes, but I am convinced it is correct by the evidence and my own personal experiences. I look around and see God's creation, I see the differences between man and animals and plants, I see the differences between men and women, everything I see validates the Bible.

Excellent, so your argument is now that the world is evidence for your argument yet you have no argument. In other words, whatever you perceive is inherently support and evidence for your beliefs, which amazingly includes evolution. I suppose though that this means regardless what arguments are presented against you, then those must also support the bible after all everything supports the bible. Notice how this isn't really a debate because of your statement but rather you just saying "well I think this supports the bible so I don't care what you say, I'm believing in the bible no matter what". You're not even willing by this statement to remotely challenge the idea or heaven forbid, acknowledge the fact that you may be wrong.

You have yet to answer my two questions because the responses you gave weren't addressing the questions, I'm not sure what they were addressing.

 

[painted wolf]

No scientific model is thought of as 100% correct. Only certain religions claim 100% truth.

Besides if evolution were proven 100% then I would be out of a career!

wa:do

 

[MSizer]

I'm surprised that people don't see this a problem.

Because there is no problem.

We have a theory, the ToE, that cannot be observed or repeated.

False. You have been shown multiple examples, yet you deliberately continue to state false information.

and scientists don't want but one theory introduced.

Absolultely false, and you have been told this before. If someone proved the ToE wrong scientist would be rushing toward the great new discovery with glee.

Let me ask you something man of faith. What do you think is the motivation behind this "big conspiracy" to "hide the truth" by scientists? Why in the world would almost all of the practitioners of many streams of science collectively lie to the public? Why only them? Why aren't the mathematicians in on it too?

 

[painted wolf]

Let me ask you something man of faith. What do you think is the motivation behind this "big conspiracy" to "hide the truth" by scientists? Why in the world would almost all of the practitioners of many streams of science collectively lie to the public? Why only them? Why aren't the mathematicians in on it too?

Actually the mathematicians would have to be in on it... as well as Chemists, Historians, Anthropologists, many religious leaders and philosophers... and on and on...

wa:do

 

[imaginaryme]

Man, you don't wanna know what the mathematicians are in on - talk about species diversity... mathematics is a state of mind more than a job description.

Hey, I like Man of Faith. Guy never quits. Someday, he's gonna sneak in here; snatch away a curious soul before all you "atheist evolutionists" jump down his neck.

Atheist evolutionist - I love that, sorry... I might have to start a cult or something, with cool robes, candles, dark rituals, and nubile young female apprentices.... mmmn nubile... Sorry again. Fool drinks a fifth of vodka, fool gets foolish.

But, come on now... arguments against "common descent" are either A) technicalities between scientists doing the actual research or B) plain ignorance. Tell you what the math says... initial condition/final condition/done. You ready to play? 1)Do you have parents? 2) Substitution time. (God) or (RNA) or (Proto-monkey) or (Xanu) ... and

Common
Descent.

Grade yer own work. I might have missed something.

 

[imaginaryme]

Get to drinking, just run my neck... but this debate is just so pointless... ya either evolve or ya don't.
http://www.youtube.com/group/tpwc#p/a/18/5MXTBGcyNuc
Common.
Descent.
About the only thing in question is horizontal gene transfer (is god a virus?), or whether or not the modern organism derived from symbiosis of hardware (cell) and software (DNA)... which I probably picked up from Wolfram... you know how us mathematicians are, heck with biologists, I'll listen to another mathematician.

 

[painted wolf]

Heck back at you mathematician.
Horizontal gene transfer just makes thing all that much more interesting. Hooray for ERV's!

It's fun to talk with a mathematician about evolution, but they tend to glaze over when you get into the messy details. (at least the ones I've talked with do)

wa:do

 

[imaginaryme]

Heck back at you mathematician.
Horizontal gene transfer just makes thing all that much more interesting. Hooray for ERV's!

It's fun to talk with a mathematician about evolution, but they tend to glaze over when you get into the messy details. (at least the ones I've talked with do)

wa:do

Yeah, we're dumb like that. Numbers, Greek letters, expressions ya can't even put into words... and we're all bright eyed and bushy tailed. Alleles and chromosomes and what? Sorry, I nodded off.