• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question for people that believe in evolution

sonofskeptish

sonofskeptish

It is what it is
ftv1975 said:
this tread is simply to learn and understand.

What evidence of evolution has persuaded you to the believe that evolution occurs?

if you have articles or anything that supports your statement i would be interested in reading them.
Click to expand...

"The Greatest Show on Earth (The Evidence for Evolution)" by Richard Dawkins
 
T

thedude82

New Member
lehtv said:
You probably mean 4.3 billion years (it's more like 4.54, just for accuracy).



The age of the Earth wasn't determined by radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating only works on the scale of thousands to tens of thousands of years. The C-14 isotope undergoes radioactive decay (hence the method) quickly compared to, say, uranium, which can be used to calculate the age of the Earth as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Uranium/thorium dating, and lead isotope ratio dating are great for exceptionally old items, such as the earth, asteroids, and the moon.

But back to the topic of this thread, evolution is an OBSERVED process. Now if you are talking speciation, yes that's an observed and well documented process as well, but you are probably talking evidence that demonstrates that species from different genera share common ancestors. Well the best evidence is endogenous retroviruses, second best is mtDNA. Think of this logically, we know that populations can change over time (observed and documented), and we know that many species appear to be genetically linked via shared ERVs and mtDNA. Shared ERVs only arise from shared ancestors so it follows that we must share a a common ancestor. mtDNA is passed from mother to offspring, so it would stand to reason again it would only be similar if the species were related by a common ancestor. Genetics combined with observed instances of evolution do it for me.
 
F

footprints

Well-Known Member
Malleus_de_Philosophia said:
Seeing as how the logic you gave for science and hence evolution is completely flawed, you're admitting that the logic for Creationism is flawed too. Excellent, you just discredited your own argument on Creationism before you even said a thing about it.



It's not my personal beliefs alone, it's the definition of something that has shaped society and is the definition that the entire scientific community uses.

As I said, science and Christianity have their own separate paradigms. If you are to support Christianity via science, then that causes a massive problem in that the assumptions, the methods and knowledge used to obtain the information is completely different. You end up twisting the view inevitably by some degree. It's akin to me being in the front row of a basketball game taking notes on the plays while you sit at the front also except you compare how the basketball game relates to a novel. Both of us witness the same actions, however, you cannot seriously say that our findings support one another because they originated with two completely different, unrelated views with different methods to obtain the information.

So I don't know how science has apparently supported Creationism but regardless of how it apparently has, the transition between science to Creationism is inherently flawed. Thus, whatever the conclusion is that you provide is a flawed one because the data and argument you provide all are based on flawed evidence and assumptions.

But I'm curious as to what your flawed conclusions are, so please list them. Just remember though, that they are flawed and anyone, regardless of their religious views who knows what science actually is will discredit you immediately. So list them for your enjoyment.



That is a current question for us all, however, the scientific paradigm ignores the possible presence of a deity. This doesn't mean that it says there is no deity, it simply means that if one does exist, then the methods of analysis and data collection will ignore its presence.
Click to expand...


Now either my conclusions are flawed and I have proven myself wrong, or you are curious as to what my alleged flawed conclusions are: Something is flawed here, and I think I know what it is.

I wouldn't deny the creation theory is flawed, I even gave the question which is left after all the probability of evolution and creationism has been posted.

Many people share the same personal beliefs, albeit a persons own personal beliefs are personal to them.
 
F

footprints

Well-Known Member
DarkSun said:
Yeah, yeah, this was your question:



In other words, what you said in black and white, was that either evolution is false or God doesn't exist.

And the reply was this:



This is a perfectly adequate response. Evolution has NOTHING to do with the existence of a deity.



Why are we even arguing if you agree with that?
Click to expand...

DarkSun, this may have escaped you, but you are the one interjecting with argument, to the best of my knowledge this is the first time I have spoken to you.

To your brain it appears it either has to be evolution or creationism. This is not so, not even a rational or logical conclusion considering science has already concluded evolution and creationism can happily coexist without any discernable difference and all evolve in the same way.
 
M

Malleus_de_Philosophia

Member
footprints said:
Now either my conclusions are flawed and I have proven myself wrong, or you are curious as to what my alleged flawed conclusions are: Something is flawed here, and I think I know what it is.
Click to expand...

I'm unsure how my curiousity plays into your arguments being flawed because regardless of how curious I am, one thing remains the same: your argument and conclusions are flawed. As I said before, regardless of what your conclusions are, if they were derived from the method you presented that I told you was flawed, then your conclusions are flawed. So I'm merely asking, what is the details of those conclusions so I can verify my assumption that your conclusions are flawed. If you don't wish to give them, then that's fine with me because you concede and essentially admit that they're flawed.

You say you know what apparently is flawed that somehow involves me being curious so please elaborate because I cannot begin to imagine what on Earth the explanation(s) is.

footprints said:
I wouldn't deny the creation theory is flawed, I even gave the question which is left after all the probability of evolution and creationism has been posted.
Click to expand...

I'm not referring to the general creation theory, I'm referring to your spin on it that uses science to support it. Nice attempt of trying to back-peddle your way out of the mess by diverting attention to the creation theory in order to ignore the argumet I gave.

footprints said:
Many people share the same personal beliefs, albeit a persons own personal beliefs are personal to them.
Click to expand...

I agree but I everyone who has personal beliefs of any sort accepts this statement, and so it becomes redundant to mention it.
 
DarkSun

DarkSun

:eltiT
footprints said:
DarkSun, this may have escaped you, but you are the one interjecting with argument, to the best of my knowledge this is the first time I have spoken to you.
Click to expand...

My apologies.

footprints said:
To your brain it appears it either has to be evolution or creationism. This is not so, not even a rational or logical conclusion considering science has already concluded evolution and creationism can happily coexist without any discernable difference and all evolve in the same way.
Click to expand...

So how can life have gradually evolved over several billion years, while at the same time, life was formed in seven days, just 7000 years ago? I have nothing against Intelligent Design, but quite frankly, fundamentalist creationism has been disproven by so many aspects of scientific knowledge that believing it would be ridiculous.

Unless you're willing to accept that you're being illogical in believing that the universe was made in seven days, that things don't evolve, or that the Earth is 7000-13,000 years old. If you have faith in that, then that's really up to you. The evidence is against you, though.
 
DarkSun

DarkSun

:eltiT
footprints said:
That is the answer many people give when I keep them honest.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it would help if you told everyone what you're really arguing. Here, I'll make a check list for you so that you can put an X next to the things you believe when quoting.


[] Things don't evolve. God made everything as is, and it will remain as is.
[] I belive in some kind of Intelligent Designer who orchestrated evolution.
[] I belive the world was made in seven days by God.
[] I take the Biblical Creation story literally.
[] I take the Biblical Creation story as a metaphor.



Feel free to ellaborate if you want. If you've already answered these questions, it might help if you could link me?
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
this tread is simply to learn and understand.

What evidence of evolution has persuaded you to the believe that evolution occurs?

if you have articles or anything that supports your statement i would be interested in reading them.
Click to expand...
wow... that would be quite a list. (I can't help but trip over evidence for evolution as a biologist)

Here is a good start for you, It updates daily. :cool:
ScienceDaily: Evolution News

enjoy.

wa:do
 
F

footprints

Well-Known Member
DarkSun said:
My apologies.



So how can life have gradually evolved over several billion years, while at the same time, life was formed in seven days, just 7000 years ago? I have nothing against Intelligent Design, but quite frankly, fundamentalist creationism has been disproven by so many aspects of scientific knowledge that believing it would be ridiculous.

Unless you're willing to accept that you're being illogical in believing that the universe was made in seven days, that things don't evolve, or that the Earth is 7000-13,000 years old. If you have faith in that, then that's really up to you. The evidence is against you, though.
Click to expand...

Down some lines the universe is alleged to have occured in 7 days, how long was a day? What I would deem illogical, would be attributing a time period to a time period which is unknown. What I would consider even more illogical would be you attributing a time period for me.

I do not have a belief, that is the prime reason I can put facts where they fit and you would have a problem with it, your own personal belief just wouldn't let the facts fit.
 
F

footprints

Well-Known Member
DarkSun said:
Perhaps it would help if you told everyone what you're really arguing. Here, I'll make a check list for you so that you can put an X next to the things you believe when quoting.


[] Things don't evolve. God made everything as is, and it will remain as is.
[] I belive in some kind of Intelligent Designer who orchestrated evolution.
[] I belive the world was made in seven days by God.
[] I take the Biblical Creation story literally.
[] I take the Biblical Creation story as a metaphor.



Feel free to ellaborate if you want. If you've already answered these questions, it might help if you could link me?
Click to expand...



[] Things don't evolve. God made everything as is, and it will remain as is.
[] I belive in some kind of Intelligent Designer who orchestrated evolution.
[] I belive the world was made in seven days by God.
[] I take the Biblical Creation story literally.
[] I take the Biblical Creation story as a metaphor.

Hope this helps. You really do have a vivid imagination don't you?
 
T

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
footprints said:
Down some lines the universe is alleged to have occured in 7 days, how long was a day? What I would deem illogical, would be attributing a time period to a time period which is unknown. What I would consider even more illogical would be you attributing a time period for me.

I do not have a belief, that is the prime reason I can put facts where they fit and you would have a problem with it, your own personal belief just wouldn't let the facts fit.
Click to expand...

If it's not "a day" that we observe by todays standards, than whats the point of calling it a day? That kind of terminology can be very confusing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top