M-15 - Evolution & Creationism

[Tiberius]

According to the Catholic church, there is "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . .

This sounds like saying that Two worst enemies will never fight as long as they don't come anywhere near each other. keeping science seperate from religion certainly will prevent the paradoxes that occur when the two are brought together, but it will never allow a solution to those paradoxes to be reached.

If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’;

This implies very strongly that God is concerned only with providing us with our salvation. If this is true, then everything on this planet was designed to aid in that salvation. This is surely not the case; after all, what does a sea-cucumber contribute to the salvation of mankind?


and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

In other words, the Bible was "dumbed down" so the people of the time could understand it? If we are to continue with the assumption that the Bible was written so that people of the time could grasp it, shouldn't we update the Bible completely? After all, the people of today have a much greater understanding of the universe than even those of 500 years ago. We understand that the planets move around the sun, for example. Also, if the Bible was written for the understanding of the people back then, is it not possible that the concept of God was created to aid that understanding by providing an initial cases for everything?

"Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159).

Scientific investigation can only yield results that will support the Bible? That's hardly the case. Apart from the fact that the Biblical account of the creation of the universe is inconsistant with observed nature, we are yet to find the remains of Noah's Ark, even though we are told without a doubt of where it came to rest. A great deal of science conflicts with faith.

[FawkesFire]

Didn't mean to offend, Cutbert....'course I know there are plenty of enlightened catholics. I was trying to think of a better description of what I meant but fell short.

[Byrum]

That is assuming all Catholics take the Bible literally. Though some do, many don't and for them science and religion can come together because they realise that God did not make the world in 7 days but God started off evolution. I think it is only the extremeists and or fundamentalists in any religion who are going to ignore scientific fact because it negates some of the stories in their holy book, though sometimes it is generalised to all Christians.

[Cuthbert]

Unless I recall incorrectly, John Paul II has embraced theistic evolution. To an extent, anyway.

Yep, I looked for one of his quotes, but couldn't find any at the time.

Didn't mean to offend, Cutbert....'course I know there are plenty of enlightened catholics. I was trying to think of a better description of what I meant but fell short.

No problem at all, just thought I'd offer a little food for thought.

Tiberius, I don't have time right now, but I'll get back to your response later.

[Wab]

Unless I recall incorrectly, John Paul II has embraced theistic evolution. To an extent, anyway.

Some excerpts (emphasis is mine):

"In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation."

"In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences."

"The Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis."

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory."

http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html

Naturally fundy nutters see JPII as the anti-Christ: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1161.cfm

[Dementor Dave]

The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

Not so in the past... many scientist lost their lives to the Inquisition. The future is not so clear. Many christians have deemed John Paul II the Pope who will usher in the apocolypse. Others embrace his tolerance of science. Time will tell if the Church becomes more recactionary or begins to inch toward progress.


Thanks Wab. I was relatively certain, but the quotes make it clear. :)

[Tiberius]

That is assuming all Catholics take the Bible literally. Though some do, many don't and for them science and religion can come together because they realise that God did not make the world in 7 days but God started off evolution. I think it is only the extremeists and or fundamentalists in any religion who are going to ignore scientific fact because it negates some of the stories in their holy book, though sometimes it is generalised to all Christians.

I feel that people who adapt their faith to suit what science has proven are just trying to hold onto their beliefs because they are afraid or just don't want to let them go.

[xXillusion]

wicked (did I use it right? lol)
I'm writimg an essay on the exact subject!

1. What do you believe in?
Evolution

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
Well not really, I mean there are evidence that the moneky bones were changing over time and were becoming more human-like. Everyone knows those evidence.
Also, it makes more sence to me

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?
Of course I would feel angry! I don't want to learn about what to me is nonsence

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
Yes it does

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?
I don't think so

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?

[Cuthbert]

I feel that people who adapt their faith to suit what science has proven are just trying to hold onto their beliefs because they are afraid or just don't want to let them go.

I think that you are mistaking in assuming that accepting evolution is an adaption of the Catholic faith. In what way has the actual faith that we follow changed? Faith is our foundation and that faith is put in the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy spirit); this has never changed.

Perhaps you mean the church adjusting views on scientific issues; this would be true. And don't we all adapt our views to scientific issues? The people of the world have adapted to the view that the world is not flat, but round (amoung thousands of other things that science has proven).

I also think that you have tended to take a more synical view of the quotes. There is more than one side to every view I suppose. But I tend to look at them differently than yourself (needless to say I suppose).


Scientific investigation can only yield results that will support the Bible? That's hardly the case. Apart from the fact that the Biblical account of the creation of the universe is inconsistant with observed nature, we are yet to find the remains of Noah's Ark, even though we are told without a doubt of where it came to rest. A great deal of science conflicts with faith.

I think you have failed to understand the previous quote by Leo XIII. His point is that many of the stories in the bible should not be taken literally, a mistaken view made by many in my opinion. Jesus often spoke in parables, the bible is no different and should be read as such.

[Byrum]

I feel that people who adapt their faith to suit what science has proven are just trying to hold onto their beliefs because they are afraid or just don't want to let them go.
Well they have to don't they? Their beleif isn't just going to flop over and die every time a new scientific theory comes along. They find a way to make it fit. It is the people who won't allow science to take any place in religion that are going to die out eventually because eventually a lot of things in the Bible will be proved wrong, evolution or something extremely similar will be proved beyond a doubt and noone will be able to dispute it, and then the creationists will either have to adapt or die out. That's the way of the world.

[Tiberius]

I think you have failed to understand the previous quote by Leo XIII. His point is that many of the stories in the bible should not be taken literally, a mistaken view made by many in my opinion. Jesus often spoke in parables, the bible is no different and should be read as such.

If the Bible is a series of parrables, then how can we be sure that it is true? If it is a series of morality tales, then should we not accept it as such? It has the characters of God and Jesus who appear in it regularly, true, but does that mean the stories are accurate? It is not unheard of for writers to use the same characters to tie their stories to other stories.

And if the Bible is just a series of parrables, how can we be sure it reflects the actual events of the time?

[Wab]

I think you have failed to understand the previous quote by Leo XIII. His point is that many of the stories in the bible should not be taken literally.

Or, as was put by the spokesman for the Catholic Church in Australia when saying that there is no evidence that the ark existed: "[Noah's Ark] was a theological story whose real purpose is to show the relationship between God and man, in which the virtuous -- Noah and his family -- are rewarded and the wicked punished".

He went on to say that creationism is: "absolutely contrary to everything the Catholic Church stands for".

[Cuthbert]

If the Bible is a series of parrables, then how can we be sure that it is true? If it is a series of morality tales, then should we not accept it as such? It has the characters of God and Jesus who appear in it regularly, true, but does that mean the stories are accurate? It is not unheard of for writers to use the same characters to tie their stories to other stories.

And if the Bible is just a series of parrables, how can we be sure it reflects the actual events of the time?

So... where are you going with this? When did we switch from creationism to the validity of the entire bible? :huh: I think that that is for a different thread, I'll stick with evolution here. In which case it looks like we agree, at any rate, that evolution has indeed taken place.

[ComicBookWorm]

So... where are you going with this? When did we switch from creationism to the validity of the entire bible? :huh: I think that that is for a different thread, I'll stick with evolution here. In which case it looks like we agree, at any rate, that evolution has indeed taken place.
Hey look we can agree upon something. :lol:

[Ilse]

I believe in evolution, for me there is no other way. I see it when I look around me, I have no proof, there is proof IMO Darwin wrote some nice things about it ;) , but for me it's just a feeling.

I went to a Roman Catholic high school, and they taught us about evolution in Biology class, they also taught us about the other theories in world-religions class, and I liked both of them though I always felt that evolution is true.

I believe in the whole package, the big bang and all that. But I must say that I do believe that the big-bang and the whole universe created by that came from something/someone. That, to me, is "God". Not a man, not a woman, not a human nor an animal but all the things in life as we know it and as we don't know it.

I read a post from someone in this topic about the "seven days" and how seven days can be seven periods in time and not 7x24 hours, and I like that thought. I think there is truth in every religion, but it's not always as it's written. therefor, I believe that religion is a beautiful thing, and I love to learn more about different religions, but I don't feel a connection with the most common religions. I'm a pagan, and though that is a religion, it doesn't feel that way for me, because it feels like the truth, while other religions feel like fairytales to me.

Like someone said before me; I feel that my religion isn't in the way of my faith in evolution, it supports it and explains the gaps for me. I believe in evolution, and I believe that came from something to big for me to really understand, some people call that thing "nothing" "everything" or "God". I call it God and Goddes.

I do think that schools shouldn't only talk about one way. Students have to learn about evolution in Biology, and they can learn about the other theories in other classes or schools.

[Cuthbert]

I really think that it would be a shame to start to teach creationism along side of evolution or even stating a disclaimer before the teaching of evolution: "THIS IS ONLY THEORY." Please... so is gravity, but I think every body can come to an agreement that Newton knew his stuff.

Just like the undeniable proof of gravity, the proof of evolution is just as solid. I envite the creationists here to first read up on evidence supporting biological evolution (http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html) and get back to us in response on all of the subjects (perhaps we can start a point, counterpoint here). The link is from the national academy of sciences.



Hey look we can agree upon something. :lol:

There is hope! :tu: I knew we'd find an agreement somewhere! :)

[clkginny]

I really think that it would be a shame to start to teach creationism along side of evolution or even stating a disclaimer before the teaching of evolution: "THIS IS ONLY THEORY." Please... so is gravity, but I think every body can come to an agreement that Newton knew his stuff.
Einstien thought that it missed a little bit. :p
Just like the undeniable proof of gravity, the proof of evolution is just as solid.
Undeniable? If you know physics, yes. However, most people only have a basic grasp of physics.
I envite the creationists here to first read up on evidence supporting biological evolution (http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html) and get back to us in response on all of the subjects (perhaps we can start a point, counterpoint here). The link is from the national academy of sciences.
Most people don't understand geologic time. Even if you aced high school science, you have to have taken at least a 200 series college course to understand the complexities of geologic time, because they aren't readily apparent. Processes that take millions of years are hard to visualize for most people. It's like trying to picture a supervolcanic eruption. There is no basis for comparison.

I don't think you are going to convince many people, unfortunately.

[Romy]

Einstien thought that it missed a little bit. :p Einstein lived 50 years ago and I dare say science has moved on since then. Not in every aspect but in many.

Undeniable? If you know physics, yes. However, most people only have a basic grasp of physics. But just because people don´t know what gravity is doesn´t make them float around in space. And I do believe that most people are familiar with the concept of gravity.

Most people don't understand geologic time. Even if you aced high school science, you have to have taken at least a 200 series college course to understand the complexities of geologic time, because they aren't readily apparent. Processes that take millions of years are hard to visualize for most people. It's like trying to picture a supervolcanic eruption. There is no basis for comparison.Half a year in secondary school was enough for me to understand the basics.

[clkginny]

Einstein lived 50 years ago and I dare say science has moved on since then. Not in every aspect but in many.
I was refering to the fact that while Newton came up with the idea of gravity, it was Einstein who refined them. Instead of an "instantaneous attraction" he gave us warped space-time. Yes, science has moved on since then. What was your point?

But just because people don´t know what gravity is doesn´t make them float around in space. And I do believe that most people are familiar with the concept of gravity.
I didn't mean to imply that people don't know what gravity is. Most people who have fallen down understand what gravity is. What most people don't understand is how it works. (Most people have no desire to learn, either.)

Half a year in secondary school was enough for me to understand the basics.
The basics are different. And so are people. I wasn't refering to you, specifically. That is why I said most people. Not all people. I'm sorry that I have insulted you with my post above, that wasn't my intention. I generally feel that people should be allowed to believe what they want, as long as they aren't hurting someone else. I just don't feel that this thread will change anyone's mind.

[Romy]

I was refering to the fact that while Newton came up with the idea of gravity, it was Einstein who refined them. Instead of an "instantaneous attraction" he gave us warped space-time. Yes, science has moved on since then. What was your point? Mainly just that science moves on. I met a lot of people who are very fond of quoting Einstein without realising that a lot of time has passed since then. :p

I didn't mean to imply that people don't know what gravity is. Most people who have fallen down understand what gravity is. What most people don't understand is how it works. (Most people have no desire to learn, either.)Ah, I thought you meant gravity as a whole. You are referring to the concept of the density of matter, I trust?

The basics are different. And so are people. I wasn't refering to you, specifically. That is why I said most people. Not all people. I'm sorry that I have insulted you with my post above, that wasn't my intention. I generally feel that people should be allowed to believe what they want, as long as they aren't hurting someone else. I just don't feel that this thread will change anyone's mind.I´ve taken no offense, just wanted to point out that I, for one, did understand it and didn´t find it as difficult as most concepts in maths or physics. We have not gone into the very depths of the subject but only covered Darwin´s theories which I found to be rather easily understandable providing you are in the least open to his ideas. I´m afraid it´s harder to grasp if you don´t believe in things like natural selection, spontaneous mutation or random recombination before you even heard of them :( .

[PotionsMaster]

I'm not going to try to persuade one way or the other... all I'll say is that I had a professor that put in beautifully in saying that religion has no room in science. If you want to believe everything was made by a god or some other devine being and that's just the way it is, fine, but please don't waste the time of others arguing about it (here is fine, I was think more of a classroom situation where it comes up, so I REALLY urge people who have a problem with the theory of evolution not to take a class that will upset you because it causes many other's education to suffer, all that time spent arguing could be time learning). But in the eyes of most religion science is useless if "that's the way god made it and that's the way god wants it" is the explanation for everything.

[clkginny]

Mainly just that science moves on. I met a lot of people who are very fond of quoting Einstein without realising that a lot of time has passed since then. :p
Yes, many people still think that Einstein was the last word on scientific discoveries. (I've met people who don't know who Steven Hawking is)

Ah, I thought you meant gravity as a whole. You are referring to the concept of the density of matter, I trust?
More than that, but how gravity affects things people don't tend to see or know. Like how a mountain range has enough mass (density) to throw off a plumb line, or how it can affect even light, or that weight is not a function of gravity, but mass and density versus the relative object and body. The idea of specific gravity. (Most people don't realize that Saturn would float if there was a body of water sufficient to the task :eyebrows: )

I´ve taken no offense, just wanted to point out that I, for one, did understand it and didn´t find it as difficult as most concepts in maths or physics. We have not gone into the very depths of the subject but only covered Darwin´s theories which I found to be rather easily understandable providing you are in the least open to his ideas. I´m afraid it´s harder to grasp if you don´t believe in things like natural selection, spontaneous mutation or random recombination before you even heard of them :( .
I was refering to geologic time, not evolutionary time (not saying that you don't know the difference, just clarifying). Most people don't understand how long it takes for the rock that (for example) dinosaur fossils might be found in takes to form, the processes that might have affected it since that time, or how long it takes for those same rocks to be uncovered by erosion. Our time here is the blink of an eye in geologic terms, so most of us have no understanding of what those time scales are.
I'm glad I didn't insult you. I have met many people who couldn't grasp how and why things work the way they do. Most of those people don't want to learn, either. Which is why I said I don't think this thread will convince anyone.

[Byrum]

To add on to that point, people aren't going to be convinced because it is their beleif, just as people who beleive in Creationism take the Bible as their evidence (which they beleive is 100% true or at least hiighly unfallible) people who beleive in evolution aren't going to be convinced by the Bible and it's evidence.

Sigh, its just a perpetual struggle in which noone wins :).

[Cuthbert]

It is a mistake to assume that the purpose of this or other threads is to "win" or to prove someone else wrong. If that is the endpoint you seek in the discussions of the Department of International Magical Cooperation, you may find yourself becoming frustrating very quickly.

I tend to look at these discussions as a means to understand the other side of the argument as well as read further supporting facts of my own ideas. In this way, I come to a better understanding of what I, as well as others, really believe. It isn't about "winners" or "losers." Life is rarely so black and white. But if you must think in those terms, at least take a moment to listen those who you think are the "losers" of this and other discussions (no matter what you believe). You might be surprised at what they have to say sometimes; heck, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I suppose we've been off topic long enough, so I'll take the step down from this soapbox. I still await a response from the creationists to my previous post.

[Byrum]

Evolution and Creationism are at opposite ends of the spectrum, it is too much bait for people of one persuasion to not try and convince someone else that they are wrong and you are right. If all we did was lay our opinions on the table and then leave there would be no discussion, the whole point of debate threads is to debate to try and come up with an answer. As much as it might seem like it, comprimising or 'agreeing to disagree' is not an answer, that is a resolution to a conflict, not the answer to the question.

[Cuthbert]

Who said anything about compromise? I rarely compromise my beliefs or values. Nor will I do so in the case of evolution. My point is simply this: do not give up the discussion because you might think that you won't convince someone. Which seemed to be where clkginny was going with her response to a previous statement of mine.

[Midnightsfire]

A question I posed in the God Thread:

After reading a bit here and there, there seems to be a general consensus that there is a wealth (hundreds of artifacts) of archaeological evidence that suggests that Mankind may be far older that originally thought.

Does anyone else agree with that conclusion? (We're speaking of hundreds of millions of years.)


I had to feel out certain books (Like Forbidden Archaeology) just to be certain...

[ComicBookWorm]

I think there is too much evidence that we were very primitive 1,000,000 years ago, and not much evidence that we were advanced. There is a fairly easy to follow progression of evolution of the hominid family. And 1,000,000 years ago we were homo erectus (or homo ergaster depending on the who does the naming). I haven't seen any fossils that would suggest anything different.

I think the suggestions that we were advance is based on some anomalous findings that can be explained by geologic intrusions and alternative interpretations. The anomalies are scarce, but the evidence to the contrary is more numerous. So I don't buy it.

Here are the best timing estimates we have. The universe is 12-16 billion years old. I'm using the American definition for billion which is 1000 million. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. And bipedal hominids are traced back around 5 million years. Modern humans appeared 150,000 years ago. But we didn't start flowering until 50,000 years ago when what could be described as modern behaviors began. That included sophisticated tools, jewelry, clothing, and more recently art.

Hominids were pretty primitive 1,000,000 years. Homo Erectus had a brain 2/3 our size. They used very crude stone tools and had no indications of the symbolic thought needed for speech. Art (paintings and sculptures) and jewlery are the ways we can identify symbolic thought. There is a school of thought that we developed the ability for symbolic thinking and enhanced language abilities 50,000 years ago when we began to flower. It's called the "Great Leap Forward". At that point our technology grew far more rapidily than it had in the past so language is assumed to be the catalyst.

[lupa]

i attended a christian school where creation science was taught in my earth science class. we spent at least 6 weeks studying this, ending in a report on what it had taught us. but it shouldn't matter. creationism is a part of your faith, and the definition of faith is that it is believed without proof. christians should not be forced to give proof for faith. i am glad creationism is not taught at public schools, public schooling should be secular, and if parents do not want their kids taught evolution; they can send them to private school.

[halfbreedlover]

i attended a christian school where creation science was taught in my earth science class. we spent at least 6 weeks studying this, ending in a report on what it had taught us. but it shouldn't matter. creationism is a part of your faith, and the definition of faith is that it is believed without proof. christians should not be forced to give proof for faith. i am glad creationism is not taught at public schools, public schooling should be secular, and if parents do not want their kids taught evolution; they can send them to private school.

Wait, do private schools not teach evolution or do they teach creationism along side evolution?

[HollywoodBob]

Wait, do private schools not teach evolution or do they teach creationism along side evolution?Depends on the school.

The catholic school I attended, taught evolution, but only in the pretext of how it was just an erroneous theory cooked up by God hating scientists.

-HollywoodBob

[marauderlupin]

I went to a private religious school for a while and they taught evolution properly but added that it only happened because God planned it that way.

[clkginny]

Who said anything about compromise? I rarely compromise my beliefs or values. Nor will I do so in the case of evolution. My point is simply this: do not give up the discussion because you might think that you won't convince someone. Which seemed to be where clkginny was going with her response to a previous statement of mine.
Sorry, I was responding to the evidence portion of your statement, mainly. Evidence has to be accepted by the reader, in order to carry weight in any argument. I felt that most people wouldn't accept what we might show as "evidence" of anything. I didn't mean that I or anyone else shouldn't still debate the point.

The latest that I'd heard about humans and how long they've been here had to do with an evolutionary surge that suggests there were other varities of human beings that died off.

[Ilse]

I really think that it would be a shame to start to teach creationism along side of evolution or even stating a disclaimer before the teaching of evolution: "THIS IS ONLY THEORY." Please... so is gravity, but I think every body can come to an agreement that Newton knew his stuff.

Just like the undeniable proof of gravity, the proof of evolution is just as solid. I envite the creationists here to first read up on evidence supporting biological evolution (http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html) and get back to us in response on all of the subjects (perhaps we can start a point, counterpoint here). The link is from the national academy of sciences.



I don't know if your response about the whole theory thing was directed to me, but let me say that I don't see evolution as a theory. Evolution is the truth and I think that creationism is a theory.
However that's only my opinion, so if someone said that evolution is a theory, it's his/her right to say that, so that's why I talked about theories.

I also believe that it's good to know of more than one opinion in every situation, it helps you to understand culture, religions and most important people.

[Wab]

Depends on the school.

The catholic school I attended, taught evolution, but only in the pretext of how it was just an erroneous theory cooked up by God hating scientists.

-HollywoodBob

The Catholic schools I attended pointedly separated fact and faith, teaching only evolution and using religious education classes to remind us that Genesis is allegorical.

[Byrum]

My private Catholic school doesn't even teach religion as a subject, alternatively we have a Study of Religion, yes there is a difference, which studies all religions of the world, like there beginnings and beleifs etc.

I asked one of my teachers, who is a practicing Catholic unlike most of my other teachers, if she beleived in creationism or evolution and she said evolution, and kind of looked at me funny, as if I was stupid to be asking that question.

[ArtemisiaDax]

I don't see evolution as a theory. Evolution is the truth and I think that creationism is a theory.
However that's only my opinion, so if someone said that evolution is a theory, it's his/her right to say that, so that's why I talked about theories.

Strictly speaking, evolution IS a theory (just as gravity is) for the reason that scientists are always very hesitant to call anything absolute truth. If, tomorrow, people were to discover massive amounts of evidence that some other explanation was more plausible, then the theory of evolution would be revised to accommodate that. "Theory" shouldn't be a bad word; it shouldn't imply that its contents are less than valid. It's just a name for a scientific hypothesis that has been backed up by thousands upon thousands of experimental observations and empirical evidence.

It really bothered me when that state wanted to put stickers on the books saying "this is ONLY a theory." Well, yes...gravity is also *only* a theory, as is our theory of infectious disease, as is the theory of quantum mechanics...so, if those stickers were to be required, shouldn't they just stick something on the book that says "Warning! EVERYTHING in science is ONLY a theory!" It was just so completely absurd.

[Alci]

The catholic school I attended, taught evolution, but only in the pretext of how it was just an erroneous theory cooked up by God hating scientists.

:whistle: What a loverly reminder that sections of the Catholic Church are still struggling with ideas of the enlightenment let alone Darwinism.

[Tiberius]

Strictly speaking, evolution IS a theory (just as gravity is) for the reason that scientists are always very hesitant to call anything absolute truth. If, tomorrow, people were to discover massive amounts of evidence that some other explanation was more plausible, then the theory of evolution would be revised to accommodate that. "Theory" shouldn't be a bad word; it shouldn't imply that its contents are less than valid. It's just a name for a scientific hypothesis that has been backed up by thousands upon thousands of experimental observations and empirical evidence.

That's very true. The word "theory" as used in science does not mean just an idea. It means an idea which has been shown to be supported by facts. Most scientific theories have a great deal of evidence behind them, and scientists use those theories for the simple reason that they accurately predict and explain the events we see in the world around us.

[Groupieguppie]

Also, I think we ought to differentiate between theory and law. Gravitation, Newton's mechanics, is a law. Evolution is a theory, cell is theory, and quantum mechanics is a theory. Law are just theories that have been around long enough. Once the paradigm has shifted and the people in opposition to the original theory have died out, and enough experimental evidence has accumulated that are in accordance with the predictions proposed by that theory, that theory can technically become a law. Keep in mind that a theory can not be proven, since it is physically impossible to test every variable under every condition. Some conditions (0 kelvin for example) can't be reached.

[Tiberius]

Also, I think we ought to differentiate between theory and law. Gravitation, Newton's mechanics, is a law. Evolution is a theory, cell is theory, and quantum mechanics is a theory. Law are just theories that have been around long enough.

The danger with this is that the word LAW tends to imply that it has been proven, which, as you quite rightly say, can't be done.

Also, there's a murky area in how long a theory needs to be around to get to be a law. Also, I think by this definition, Evolution and cell theory could be called laws as well.

[Groupieguppie]

You know, I really think a theory becomes law when all the challengers die of old age.

[Tiberius]

It should be noted that Newton's idea of gravity isn't quite accurate. Newton saw gravity sorta like a rope holding planets in orbit around the sun. Cut the rope, he thought, and the planets would immediately fly away.

We now know this isn't true. Gravity is a distortion in spacetime, sorta like putting a bowling ball on your bed. The ball bends the matress around it, creating a small indentation. If you could flick a marble at just the right speed, it will go around the indentation forever (assuming you could get around friction, which doesn't happen in space). If you flick too hard, it will fly out away from the bowling ball, too softly, and it will fall down and hit the ball.

Planets orbiting is much the same. This is a great example of how a theory is modified to accomodate the latest research and information. Other theories are the same, including the theory of evolution. I just used the gravity example because I don't know one for evolution.

That's one of the key differences between creationsism and evolution. Creationsism can't change to suit the latest information. Evolution can.

[halfbreedlover]

You know, I really think a theory becomes law when all the challengers die of old age.

Then evolution has a loooong way to go.

[Cuthbert]

You know, I really think a theory becomes law when all the challengers die of old age.


From my searches...

After a great deal of confirmation, an explanation can become a scientific law (only if it is mathematically precise) or, if it has been a theory, a principle.

Remember:
in science all Theories and Laws remain hypotheses in the sense that they can and are retested over and over again, modified or discarded if they are
disproved or falsified.

[Groupieguppie]

Right, like the fundamental laws of calculus and the principles of mendelian inheritance.

[Byrum]

Remember:
in science all Theories and Laws remain hypotheses in the sense that they can and are retested over and over again, modified or discarded if they are
disproved or falsified.
Exactly, science and scientist (the ones who know their stuff anyway) recognise that everything they know is a theory, but basically it has been tested thousands of times in every condition they could possibly test it in and it has worked.

Religion, on the other hand, can never have tests to see whether it is right or not because you can never know. Do you really think that if you tested Christianity in the condition of a Muslim state that it would last very long?

[Max]

I'm curious how creationists explain, or perhaps otherwise reject, the mountains of evidence supporting evolution. For one thing, there's the fossil record showing the gradual adaptation of animals over time, and the common traits we share with other species (limbs, hearts, brains, etc.) which all suggest common ancestry. Surely the fossil record doesn't fit with the Bible's version of creationism, and in my opinion the various justifications for creationism are really just grasping at straws to support an increasingly outdated and outmoded belief. Evolution is proven. What proof is there to support creationism?

And for "intelligent design", we sure have a lot of stuff inside of us which we serve no clear purpose whatsoever.

[Dementor Dave]

I'm curious how creationists explain, or perhaps otherwise reject, the mountains of evidence supporting evolution. For one thing, there's the fossil record showing the gradual adaptation of animals over time, and the common traits we share with other species (limbs, hearts, brains, etc.) which all suggest common ancestry. Surely the fossil record doesn't fit with the Bible's version of creationism, and in my opinion the various justifications for creationism are really just grasping at straws to support an increasingly outdated and outmoded belief. Evolution is proven. What proof is there to support creationism?

And for "intelligent design", we sure have a lot of stuff inside of us which we serve no clear purpose whatsoever.

If they react like some on this forum, then they merely decide that the fossil record is false. Science dosen't hold the "truth" or keep you from hell, so why bother?

The sad fact is, the reason creationist oppose evolution so adamantly is that once creation and Adam and Eve are gone, so is their religion. Take away Eve's original sin, and you abolish thet need for Jesus. That is why evolution is so heavily opposed. Because it means losing religion.

[Alci]

If they react like some on this forum, then they merely decide that the fossil record is false.

The line of argument was something like god created the earth with an "apparent age". Fossils are there to fool people who insist on trying to understand the mysteries of God. A list of the various “explanations” (and I use that word under duress) can be found here (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_creationist_arguments#Questionable_fossils)

The Roberts' quote is a favourite of mine.

[MrsGWeasley]

1. What do you believe in?I believe in creation

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?not off the top of my head but I have been to seminar like things on why creationism is right vs. evolution, and yes there is historical evidence that the bible is true also

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?I don't mind completely that it is left out, but if it is left out then evolution should be too since they are both considered "theories"

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?I am not for evolution but if people are saying that they would be angry then that is unfair since we have to learn evolution against our better judgement

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?Yes I think that when the Bible is brought nin people automatically back away and think of it as some crack-pot fairy tale..which isn't true at all

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?Well I can't say because I am a believer

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?Well I think Darwins' theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest can be proven but in a smaller scale, I don't believe it can be scientifically proven that we all came from little specks in the sea

If they react like some on this forum, then they merely decide that the fossil record is false. Science dosen't hold the "truth" or keep you from hell, so why bother?

The sad fact is, the reason creationist oppose evolution so adamantly is that once creation and Adam and Eve are gone, so is their religion. Take away Eve's original sin, and you abolish thet need for Jesus. That is why evolution is so heavily opposed. Because it means losing religion.
if evolution is proven then why is it called the theory of evolution?

[Dementor Dave]

The line of argument was something like god created the earth with an "apparent age". Fossils are there to fool people who insist on trying to understand the mysteries of God. A list of the various “explanations” (and I use that word under duress) can be found here (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_creationist_arguments#Questionable_fossils)

The Robert's quote is a favourite of mine.


Thanks for the link. It illustrates the fashion of the anti-evolutionists far better than I could exlpain it.

The Roberts quote is amoung my favourites as well, thankyou. :)

[MrsGWeasley]

1. What do you believe in?
- Creation

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

4,400 years ago
- - God judges man's rebellion and perversion with a year-long worldwide flood and reduces the human population to eight.

Genesis 7:19-20 "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."

4,300 Yeas Ago - The Tower of Babel
- - Scattering of human population. Spreading of languages and skin color. Variations of skin color have been shown to be adaptations to the amount of solar ultraviolet radiation.

Associated Press, August 27, 2000,
Journal of Human Evolution, July 2000

2,000 Years Ago - Jesus' Birth
- - The western calendar dates all events by whether they occurred before (BC) or after (AD, anno domini in Latin) Christ.

Today
- - Human population of 6+ billion would be much larger if humans have been on earth for more than 6,000 years.

DNA Strands
- - Using newly calculated mitochondrial DNA mutation rate, scientists are able to back date the beginnings of the human species. New data indicates there was an "Eve gene," a common mother who was ancestral to all humans, who lived a mere 6,000 years ago!
Science 279: 28-29, 1998

Grand Canyon
Could Noah's worldwide flood have changed the surface terrain of the earth in just a few hours? Scientists now admit there is a phenomenon called a superflood, a catastrophic flood that can transform landscape in a period as short as a few hours. Canyons and valleys as big as the Grand Canyon could have formed in days, not over tens of thousands of years as previously alleged.
Science Magazine, April 2002

Great Barrier Reef
The Great Barrier Reef has been estimated to be 4,200 years old. No living thing is older than about 5,000 years, which is consistent with life forms beginning after the time of Noah's worldwide flood.

If the Earth were millions of years old there would be billions of tons of atmospheric carbon trapped in the wet ground of northern boreal forests.
Earth Observatory, NASA

Oldest City
The oldest human civilizations are not dated beyond a few thousand years. Damascus, Syria, is considered to be the oldest continually inhabited city at about 6,000 years of age. The earliest known examples of handwriting date back to 3500 BC (5,500 years ago). The Cheops pyramid was built in Egypt 2500 BC. China is the oldest continuous human civilization known which only dates back to Emperor Yao and Shun in 3000 BC. Dating backwards using human mitochondrial DNA mutation rates, current estimates are that humans have only existed for 6,000 years.

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?
*shrug* It wouldn't matter or not. You can believe what you like.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?
N/A

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
Well, I only quoted a small part of the Bible at the start there, so hopefully not, but I understand peoples views.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?
N/A

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?
Yes, but that doesn't exclude God's involvement.
wow you are really good at proving our view point..good thing because I couldn't remember any of those facts :)

[Dementor Dave]

if evolution is proven then why is it called the theory of evolution?

Nothing can be proven in the absolute sense. You'll notice I did not use the term "proven", But it is not disproven, and is widely accepted by the scientific community. Whereas creation has been fairly well debunked by science.

[Max]

Originally posted by MrsGWeasley
if evolution is proven then why is it called the theory of evolution?

That's the problem. People always say that evolution is "just" a theory, while in actual fact a scientific theory is a hypothesis backed up by observational and experimental data. So technically, everything in science is "only" a theory. Atomic theory, gravitation ... these are theories, but do creationists question these too? Or only evolution, on the grounds that it is the theory of evolution.

[Fred Black]

Well i certainly like the idea of the evolution as it shows a mystical side to like, almost magical. What prompts me to say this is that maybe, just maybe there are more "forces" at work here, including evolution. I mean i just can't get my head round the whole cells forming complex multi-cellular organisms. It is quite hard to imagine.

[Cuthbert]

The sad fact is, the reason creationist oppose evolution so adamantly is that once creation and Adam and Eve are gone, so is their religion. Take away Eve's original sin, and you abolish thet need for Jesus. That is why evolution is so heavily opposed. Because it means losing religion.

You're in the wrong direction there I think. Why is the Catholic Church still around then?

[Dementor Dave]

You're in the wrong direction there I think. Why is the Catholic Church still around then?

I never said the realization would be instantaneous.

[Wab]

I never said the realization would be instantaneous.

And as pointed out the Catholic Church has no quarrel with evolutionism.

[Musereader]

Can I just point out that (Biological) Evolution is not directly equivalant to Creationism. Biological Evolution is only about animals and plants, where Creationism is also concerned with the creation of the universe, the world, the sun and the rest of it, but I guess that biological Evolution is the most contraversial part of the debate. If you are wondering about the reason for the 'biological' is because this discussion is about biological evolution. Evolution is not strictly related to biology, it means the slow change of something into something different hence you can have mechanical evolution, evolution of the stars and planets etc.

If you want me to give you a scientific explanation of the creation of solar systems, planets and stars and an account of the very early years of the earth, (when there was no atmosphere or seas and the earth was one big molten rock) then I will.

Anyway my contribution is this - an account of 4 major mass extinctions through geologic time.
99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, and most of them die as background extinction.
The earth is 4,600 million years old and life has only been on earth since about 665 million years ago(Ma), the cambrian explosion of life began 580Ma
The first major mass extinction was 440Ma where 50% of the marine life died out - there was no animal life on land as of yet but. there were plants. Blamed on glaciation
The second one was 350Ma which is also blamed on glaciation, though a meteoite has been proposed as the reason several times
The Third was 245Ma with 60-70% of all species dying out, 90% of the marine species died. This is blamed on glaciations or volcanoes
The fourth is the Dinosaur one 65Ma which is blamed on a meteor or volcanoes

One thing, the earth was actually ready for life ~3,000Ma yet it took so long for the random chance to happen that we only have 600Ma of biological history, it took another 100Ma to evolve land life and another 450 to evolve mammals then even more millions of years to evolve intelligent life, surely the history of the planet has had sufficient time to have that happen? How can you prove evolution from a single celled organism when it takes at least 20 million years for that to happen?

On and btw the thing about rocks is that they are really hard and if something is not preserved in them while it was forming then it is not going to get into the rock later.

[Romy]

:welcome:
3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?I don't mind completely that it is left out, but if it is left out then evolution should be too since they are both considered "theories"

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?I am not for evolution but if people are saying that they would be angry then that is unfair since we have to learn evolution against our better judgementSchool is a place where you learn about science not religion. That´s why maths, biology, chemistry and physics are part of the curriculum. Religion is not a scientific subject at all so leaving creationism out and including evolution is perfectly reasonable.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?Yes I think that when the Bible is brought nin people automatically back away and think of it as some crack-pot fairy tale..which isn't true at allThe Bible lacks scientific background for the most part as it´s simply too old to be accurate. A few thousand years ago people simply didn´t know how to find out how the world was created so they wrote down what made most sense to them. Using the Bible as counterprove to evolution is therefore not very accurate as it operates on a completyl different level than science.

PS: Blue, turquoise, etc. are very hard to read on this background. :)

[rachNZ]

1. What do you believe in?

Evolution, one of my majors at uni is Anthropology, and im specializing in both bio-evolution and archaeology, so i dont think creationism really fits with me

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

sure, its called fossil evidence, mixed with a small amount of genetics, climatology, and the study of primates

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

Yes, creationism is based on religon and religon shouldnt be forced on people, on the other hand evolution is a branch of biology, when i was at high school when we studied human evolution it was in biology which was an optional subject, if you didnt believe in human evolution you had a choice not to take the subect or not.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?

Most likely, as i said before, it puts a religous aspect to the situation and if you dont believe in that then people wont go near it

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

I dont think so but i dont really want to get my mind around the whole 'universe' thing, i personally would go with scientific theory.

That's the problem. People always say that evolution is "just" a theory, while in actual fact a scientific theory is a hypothesis backed up by observational and experimental data. So technically, everything in science is "only" a theory. Atomic theory, gravitation ... these are theories, but do creationists question these too? Or only evolution, on the grounds that it is the theory of evolution.


Most of my texts i use are based on the study of 'the theory of evolution' They can have the facts there, such as this is that species and this is that, but because no one was there to see it people theorize about what happened to older hominids, how they lived and acted etc. They cant be said to be facts because new evidence is coming to light all the time changing what people used to think, for example, the split of Chimps and Humans is constantly being pushed back when new fossil evidence arises.

It will always remain a theory, even if someone went back in time they could never specifically answer all the unanswered questions because evolution happens so slowly, ours for up to 7 million years, even a snap shot of the past wouldnt give answers.

[Chiasma]

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?I don't mind completely that it is left out, but if it is left out then evolution should be too since they are both considered "theories"

Could you explain the theory of creation to me please? I wasn't aware of any scientific thoeries that are alternatives to evolution.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?I am not for evolution but if people are saying that they would be angry then that is unfair since we have to learn evolution against our better judgement

How can learning evolution be against someones better judgement when the haven't even learnt what it is yet? :shrug: After all you can't say somethings wrong when you don't understand it, can you?

if evolution is proven then why is it called the theory of evolution?
Theories explain facts, what fact does the theory of evolution explain if it isn't the fact of evolution? Evolution is a Fact and a Theory (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)

I mean i just can't get my head round the whole cells forming complex multi-cellular organisms. It is quite hard to imagine.
I know what you mean, but have you heared of slime molds? I saw an article on the the other day explaining how they start of as single cell amoeba things, but then they join up together to form a multicellular colony. It made it easier to picture how primitive life forms started to be mulitcellular.

From here (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/protista/slimemolds.html) cellular slime molds, spend most of their lives as separate single-celled amoeboid protists, but upon the release of a chemical signal, the individual cells aggregate into a great swarm. Cellular slime molds are thus of great interest to cell and developmental biologists, because they provide a comparatively simple and easily manipulated system for understanding how cells interact to generate a multicellular organism. There are two groups of cellular slime molds, the Dictyostelida and the Acrasida, which may not be closely related to each other.

[HesHPfan]

I don't believe in the religious way so I am going for the evolution theory. I just don't believe the whole predestined way of thinking. In my view no God could be as cruel to make childeren die in a natural disaster because of their so called sins. I just can't get my head to it. There is just no prove of the existence of God.

Not to offend anybody, but the Bible is just a book with text with a great many people with all different agenda's.
I don't mind descending from the apes. we have evolved quite nicely. :p

[ornjbreezy]

I really think that it would be a shame to start to teach creationism along side of evolution or even stating a disclaimer before the teaching of evolution: "THIS IS ONLY THEORY." Please... so is gravity, but I think every body can come to an agreement that Newton knew his stuff.

Just like the undeniable proof of gravity, the proof of evolution is just as solid.
I'd just like to point out that it's the Law of Gravity, not the Theory of Gravity. A law is simply a summary of scientific observations, whereas a theory attempts to explain those observations. Gravity is a law, evolution is a theory. I am an Evolutionist, or at least I accept science as opposed to religion, but this mistake is critical in your point here. Newton was making observations which later came to be the Law of Gravity. Darwin tried to explain his observations. It's a fundamental difference.

I'm not saying that Darwin's explanation is not valid, because there is a whole lot of evidence backing it up (making it into a theory, as opposed to a hypothesis). I do agree that the word theory is misleading. In other areas of study, a theory is just a hunch, an idea. In science, a theory is a conglomeration of evidence attempting to explain something.

I know some people have already mentioned some things I've said, so I apologize for the doubling up of information.

[Dedalus Diggle]

I'd just like to point out that it's the Law of Gravity, not the Theory of Gravity. A law is simply a summary of scientific observations, whereas a theory attempts to explain those observations. Gravity is a law, evolution is a theory. I am an Evolutionist, or at least I accept science as opposed to religion, but this mistake is critical in your point here. Newton was making observations which later came to be the Law of Gravity. Darwin tried to explain his observations. It's a fundamental difference.

I'm not saying that Darwin's explanation is not valid, because there is a whole lot of evidence backing it up (making it into a theory, as opposed to a hypothesis). I do agree that the word theory is misleading. In other areas of study, a theory is just a hunch, an idea. In science, a theory is a conglomeration of evidence attempting to explain something.

I know some people have already mentioned some things I've said, so I apologize for the doubling up of information.

The explanation of gravity was a 'law' in that sense as Newton explained it. Even he ridiculed the fact that his version required 'spooky action at a distance' (that is, he could not explain why objects not in contact with each other affected each other). However, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity explained gravity with an actual theory, and one that has been confirmed with amazingly exacting experiments.

[ornjbreezy]

Sorry :blush: As usual, I've come to the wrong conclusion.

[Yrraine]

The oldest living thing is much more than 4000 years old. It is believed to be a 43,000 year old tree in Tasmania, with other very old plants discussed here: http://www.extremescience.com/OldestLivingThing.htm

Mitochondial Eve lived about 150,000 years ago, not 6000 years ago. See the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve. She is thought to have been part of a population of 20,000 or so; this individual, however, is the one to produce an unbroken line of daughters down to the present.

And stating that the population should be much smaller or greater for a given age of humanity does not make sense. Population depends on the rate of population growth, which changes: most notably, jumping sharply with modern sanitation and medicine, so that people who had 8 children actually raised most of them to reproduce themselves.

[rachNZ]

The oldest living thing is much more than 4000 years old. It is believed to be a 43,000 year old tree in Tasmania, with other very old plants discussed here: http://www.extremescience.com/OldestLivingThing.htm

Mitochondial Eve lived about 150,000 years ago, not 6000 years ago. See the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve. She is thought to have been part of a population of 20,000 or so; this individual, however, is the one to produce an unbroken line of daughters down to the present.

And stating that the population should be much smaller or greater for a given age of humanity does not make sense. Population depends on the rate of population growth, which changes: most notably, jumping sharply with modern sanitation and medicine, so that people who had 8 children actually raised most of them to reproduce themselves.


Im just going to take a stab in the dark here and say that you mean those figures in millions or even billions of years ago, because there is believed to be aboriginies in Australia ca 40,000-50,000 years, with humans originating somewhere in East Africa (although thats debated now also) up to 7 million years ago....and compared to the time other life has been on earth our time is minute. Think of it like the earths lifespan in an hour, life didnt appear till about 30 min in (correct me if i'm wrong) but the time hominids have existed is in about the last 20 or so seconds of the hour. I think i've come off track of the topic here.... :scared:

[Wandering Bard]

Two skulls of homo sapiens have just re-evaluated to be 195, 000 years old rather than 130,000 years old. Had God created the world back then?

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4269299.stm)


Two skulls originally found in 1967 have been shown to be about 195,000 years old, making them the oldest modern human remains known to science.
The age estimate comes from a re-dating of Ethiopian rock layers close to those that yielded the remarkable fossils.

The skulls, known as Omo I and II, push back the known presence of Homo sapiens in Africa by 40,000 years.

The latest dating work is reported in the science journal Nature.

It puts the specimens close to the time expected for the evolutionary emergence of our species. Genetic studies have indicated Homo sapiens arose in East Africa - possibly Ethiopia or Tanzania - just over 200,000 years ago.

"These are the earliest known examples of our own species and that suggests they lived earlier still," commented Nature senior editor Dr Henry Gee.

"But I am not sure how much further back you could go and still have Homo sapiens - before they graded into some other, earlier species," he told the BBC News website.

[clkginny]

And stating that the population should be much smaller or greater for a given age of humanity does not make sense. Population depends on the rate of population growth, which changes: most notably, jumping sharply with modern sanitation and medicine, so that people who had 8 children actually raised most of them to reproduce themselves.
Scientists have theorized (controversially) that there was a population bottleneck about 74,000 years ago. It is thought that the super volcano Toba might be the cause.
[QUOTE=death in vegas]
Grand Canyon
Could Noah's worldwide flood have changed the surface terrain of the earth in just a few hours? Scientists now admit there is a phenomenon called a superflood, a catastrophic flood that can transform landscape in a period as short as a few hours. Canyons and valleys as big as the Grand Canyon could have formed in days, not over tens of thousands of years as previously alleged.
The canyon could have been eroded quite quickly-under the right circumstances. We would expect to see signs that it had been eroded by a catastrophic event, though. That still doesn’t address the length of time that it takes for the rocks to form. We can trace the rocks from Bryce Canyon (Tertiary period [66mya-1.6mya] to Jurassic [208mya-144mya]) to Zion (Jurassic period [208-144mya] to the Triassic [208-245mya]) to the Grand Canyon (Triassic period [208-245mya] to Precambrian [4600-545mya]). These rock strata all have lateral continuity, therefore, they are the same. That is how we can trace them.
In science, a theory is a conglomeration of evidence attempting to explain something.
A scientific theory is a coherent explanation for one or several related natural phenomena supported by a large body of objective evidence. The fact that a scientific theory can be tested and is subject to such testing separates science from other forms of human inquiry.

[Wab]

Heliocentrism may also be dismissed on the grounds that no one has stood outside the solar system to observe Earth revolving around the sun but that's the beauty of deductive reasoning, a conclusion can be reached by application of the evidence without witnessing the event.

[Yrraine]

Im just going to take a stab in the dark here and say that you mean those figures in millions or even billions of years ago, because there is believed to be aboriginies in Australia ca 40,000-50,000 years, with humans originating somewhere in East Africa (although thats debated now also) up to 7 million years ago....and compared to the time other life has been on earth our time is minute. Think of it like the earths lifespan in an hour, life didnt appear till about 30 min in (correct me if i'm wrong) but the time hominids have existed is in about the last 20 or so seconds of the hour. I think i've come off track of the topic here.... :scared:

No, I meant an individual plant that was alive 43,000 years ago and is alive today. I was responding to an earlier post that claimed the oldest living thing (coral reef) was about 4000 years old. Same post claimed mitochondrial eve was measured as 6000 years ago, which is similarly way off.

I've read speculation about the bottle neck. I was responding to that same post again, that if humanity was more than 6000 years old the population would be far greater. While it's possible to telescope down too low--it would be hard to get from 2 people to 6 billion in 1000 years, for example--claiming the human population "should be" 100 billion or whatever doesn't make sense, as for much of history population growth was at or just over replacement levels. Rate of population growth sped up with improved sanitation and medicine, and is now slowing.

[Chiasma]

No, I meant an individual plant that was alive 43,000 years ago and is alive today. I was responding to an earlier post that claimed the oldest living thing (coral reef) was about 4000 years old.

Additionally, tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 11,000 years (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991; Stuiver et al. 1986). A worldwide cataclysm during that time would have broken the tree ring record.
There is also the King Clone creosote bush in the Mojave Desert, which is 11,700 years old.
Anyway what does the age of a coral reef have to do with the age of the earth? BTW, I looked this up, and the reef in question is 54,330 inches thick, using the figure of 4200 years for the age of that coral, then that reef had to grow 12.9 inches per year! However, individual corals can grow no faster than 0.5 - 1.0 inch per year. The coral reefs themselves grow much more slowly (perhaps less than a tenth as fast), because they form from the breaking up and cementation of coral sand. Even if we generously use the higher rate of individual coral growth (as opposed to the growth of the actual reef) under optimum conditions, it would take 54,000 years for that reef to form.

I was responding to that same post again, that if humanity was more than 6000 years old the population would be far greater. While it's possible to telescope down too low--it would be hard to get from 2 people to 6 billion in 1000 years, for example--claiming the human population "should be" 100 billion or whatever doesn't make sense, as for much of history population growth was at or just over replacement levels. Rate of population growth sped up with improved sanitation and medicine, and is now slowing.

:agree: Nobody who has ever studied the population explosion would make such an unwise extrapolation. It is well known that growth rates have increased enormously in recent centuries. Population expert Paul Ehrlich gives world average yearly growth rates of 0.9 per cent between 1850 and 1930, 0.3 per cent between 1650 and 1850, and a mere 0.07 per cent in the thousand years prior to 1650. And in the fourteenth century the population increase must have been very small indeed, and it may even have been turned into a big decrease, because of the Black Death. Ehrlich's figures are not just guesses; they are based on historical records. These facts show how misguided it is to extrapolate present population trends into the remote past. (Hayward, Alan. 1985)

[ornjbreezy]

A scientific theory is a coherent explanation for one or several related natural phenomena supported by a large body of objective evidence. The fact that a scientific theory can be tested and is subject to such testing separates science from other forms of human inquiry.
:agree: I'm not sure if you are contradicting what I said, because I agree with both and you commented on what I said a theory was... Anywho, I completely agree that science is valuable because it is based on real observations/experiementation etc.

[clkginny]

:agree: I'm not sure if you are contradicting what I said, because I agree with both and you commented on what I said a theory was... Anywho, I completely agree that science is valuable because it is based on real observations/experiementation etc.
I was just giving the textbook definition, as opposed to your off-the-cuff definition. I wasn't trying to contradict you, unless I totally misunderstood what you wrote, which apparently I didn't. :rotfl:

[Blue_Eyes]

Hi, I'm new so I'm just going to write what I believe.

1. What do you believe in?

I believe in naturalistic evolution.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

How has every creature survived and died out? Because of evolution. Some of the dinosaurs died because they couldn't evolve fast enough and some survive because they evolved just in time. Also the cavemen evolve into us. Also if you do some research you will notice that animals over many years evolve to survive the changes that the earth does through.

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?
4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

Um, I don't want to be rude or anything but I do get annoyed when someone tries to convince me against my will that their is a God.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?

No, I just think that the Creationist need better evindence then the Bible.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

No, the universe is just to random and weird for it to be intelligently designed.

[Aebhel]

1. What do you believe in?

Evolution as adaption--that is, purely scientific evolution with no "progress toward a higher goal" going on.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

Support, yes. Prove, no.


4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

I would have absolutely no problem with it if they could come up with as much scientific evidence as the theory of evolution has. As far as I can tell, they can't.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?

Yes. The Bible cannot constitute a scientific proof because the Bible is not a scientific document. There have been no fact-checks on it beyond the "well, there might have been a big flood in the Middle East a couple thousand years ago, so Noah's ark must be true." Just because a couple of major catastrophies described in the Bible are true, it doesn't follow that everything in the Bible is true. The problem is that it requires belief. Any attempt to prove the Bible from a logical standpoint results in the following circular argument: "Well, the Bible said it so it must be true. And the Bible is the word of God, so the Bible must be true. And we know that it's the word of God because the Bible said it was."
6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

Possible, sure. No human could do it, but it's certainly possible. I've just never seen any evidence of it.

[xXillusion]

I'm writing an essay for my history class about the Scopes Monkey Trial, which deals with evolution and creationism issue.
You must know that John Scopes, a man who taught Biology in his class, was arrested. Then he was brought to the court. He lost the case and was charged only $100. Some people believed that evolution was true, others became even stronger supporters of creation. They removed all the pages from kids' biology textbooks, and whenever a word "evolution" came up, they would change it to "development". They even found an explanation to why a human is related to a class "mammalia", saying that "Man is the only creature that has moral and religious instincts."


Later, when the Soviet Union sent a man to space, American government realized that the Sovies Union must be smarter because their schools are a lot tougher, and focus on science, not religion (and they are tough. I know, I was born and lived in Russia for 14 years). So America decided to drop all the relieigous teachings and stared focusing on science. Even though biology and rocket science may not be related.

Now my views on this subject is -- Evolution is what really happened. I don't have a particular reason for it other than I came from a non-religious family, from Russia, where not many people are religious, and, to me, science makes more sence. Earth cannot be 2 or 10 thousand years old. It is abput 4.6 billion years old. The most primitive life on Earth existed 3.5 billion years ago. It might be even more, I'm not sure. From the most primitive life came more complex life by the process of mutation and evolution. Slowly came dinosaurs, mammals, and, then, monkeys.


Scientists have found fossils of earliest humans. One of the first races of early humans were called Homo erectus (there are others before this one). Homo erectus lived about 1.8 million years ago and were the first full, real humans that used tools to survive. They were hunters as well.

~~ok I think this is pretty long and states my views on this subject with plenty of evidence:)
ps. sorry for my English, it's not my first language

[MoodyHarry]

Just remember Galileo.

He proved to the public that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

The common thought (propagated by the Church) was that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

He was condemned by the Catholic Church for speaking the truth, all because the Church did not want to believe, being the truth was not in their best interest.

Only science will prove hypotheses.

[MajorBarcalow]

The book 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins. You must read it if you wish to engage in this sort of debate. If you don't get it after reading that book there's no hope for you.

[GryffondorGrl]

1. What do you believe in?
I belive in creation. I think that the world was created about 5000ish years ago by God and all the things on it too.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
Yes. The Bible scrolls were found and say all about the creation. It's all in Genesis. But I haven't really researched it much so I don't really have much evidence at the moment, but what I have is enough for me.

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?
Actually, I'm learning about evolution right now, I go to public schools. We just had a quiz and I was distrubed that we had to write about a theory we agree with (one of the theories of evolution) and creation was not on it at all, they didn't even mention creation as a possible theory. So I ended up being stuck writing about something I have absolutely no belief for so I would pass the exam. I find it unfair they make Christians learn about something that they disagree with.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
No, I think the Bible is some of the best evidence there is for creation.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?
Some parts of evolution kind of make sense, like the fact they found fossils. But most of it I find horribly incorrect, and I don't think could be correct.

[MoodyHarry]

The book 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins. You must read it if you wish to engage in this sort of debate. If you don't get it after reading that book there's no hope for you.
Well, that's charming.

I'm reading the synopsis of the book - it sounds good however... is their
a veiled theory that because all is unexplainable, that God can be the only explanation?

Give me a synopsis of the book - that would be more useful.

Because god forbid something in life go unexplained - that we should believe that we humans - in this point in humanity's existance - should really know and understand everything there is to know about the Universe.

That our minds are so advanced that we could possibly understand the Universe and all that resides in it.

Wouldn't it be more useful to say that we humans only know a limited amount of information at this point in time, and because of this limited amount of information, we can only speculate and deduce on what we currently know.

I guarentee that in 100 years, our outlook on life and the Universe as a whole will be significanty different. Why? Because we have learned more.


7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?
Some parts of evolution kind of make sense, like the fact they found fossils. But most of it I find horribly incorrect, and I don't think could be correct.

So like - how do you respond to that fact that fossils of humans (Homo Erectus) have been found 20,000 years ago?

Why do you think a book written by some people is absolute fact and should be taken at face value?

Has it ever occured to you people that maybe those who wrote the book (Old Testament) did not have the knowledge to scientifically explain the existance of life, and therefore tried to create the best story they could to explain it for the people at the time?)

[Max]

1. What do you believe in?
I belive in creation. I think that the world was created about 5000ish years ago by God and all the things on it too.

Right, I've always wanted to discuss this with a creationist, so I have a few things I'd like you to clear up. Firstly, I think that you believe in creationism because it's in the Bible. So I was to know how you explain away the fossil record with organisms dating back hundreds of millions of years, the million-year-old layers of rock strata, the clues we've found as to how life developed on our little rock. Is radiocarbon dating somehow inaccurate? If you say so, then how so is it imprecise? These are all facts that cannot be ignored, and I've yet to find any convincing creationist arguments that refute these.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
Yes. The Bible scrolls were found and say all about the creation. It's all in Genesis. But I haven't really researched it much so I don't really have much evidence at the moment, but what I have is enough for me.

A bit of circular logic isn't there? Creationism is true because the Bible says so ... the Bible is true because it's the word of God ... the Bible is the word of God because it says so ...

In my opinion the Bible isn't evidence at all. It is a holy text, a religious book, a loose record of events -- call it whatever you want -- but the fact remains that the Bible doesn't prove anything.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
No, I think the Bible is some of the best evidence there is for creation.

If the Bible is the best creationism can do then I've no idea how creationism can be considered by some as a viable scientific theory. :huh:

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?
Some parts of evolution kind of make sense, like the fact they found fossils. But most of it I find horribly incorrect, and I don't think could be correct.

Can you name the parts you find inaccurate? Evolution is one of the most universally accepted scientific theories. But really, the incorrectness of theories is the beauty of science -- our view of the world is always shapen according to the latest findings, never stagnating, and mankind's progress owes itself to science.

[MoodyHarry]

:lol: Right, I've always wanted to discuss this with a creationist, so I have a few things I'd like you to clear up. Firstly, I think that you believe in creationism because it's in the Bible. So I was to know how you explain away the fossil record with organisms dating back hundreds of millions of years, the million-year-old layers of rock strata, the clues we've found as to how life developed on our little rock. Is radiocarbon dating somehow inaccurate? If you say so, then how so is it imprecise? These are all facts that cannot be ignored, and I've yet to find any convincing creationist arguments that refute these.



A bit of circular logic isn't there? Creationism is true because the Bible says so ... the Bible is true because it's the word of God ... the Bible is the word of God because it says so ...

In my opinion the Bible isn't evidence at all. It is a holy text, a religious book, a loose record of events -- call it whatever you want -- but the fact remains that the Bible doesn't prove anything.



If the Bible is the best creationism can do then I've no idea how creationism can be considered by some as a viable scientific theory. :huh:



Can you name the parts you find inaccurate? Evolution is one of the most universally accepted scientific theories. But really, the incorrectness of theories is the beauty of science -- our view of the world is always shapen according to the latest findings, never stagnating, and mankind's progress owes itself to science.

Bloody hell! A man after my heart - if you are a man!! :lol:

Good (and extremely valid) points raised.

[Tiberius]

I've also got to agree with Max, in particular the part about the circular arguement for the Bible being evidence of god. The whole idea is very circular. Example.

How do you know God exists?
The Bible tells me.
How do you know the Bible's correct?
Because it was inspired by God.
But how do you know that God exists to have inspired it?
The Bible tells me.
How do you know the Bible's correct?

See the pattern?

[genesis]

Actually, I'm learning about evolution right now, I go to public schools. We just had a quiz and I was distrubed that we had to write about a theory we agree with (one of the theories of evolution) and creation was not on it at all, they didn't even mention creation as a possible theory. So I ended up being stuck writing about something I have absolutely no belief for so I would pass the exam. I find it unfair they make Christians learn about something that they disagree with.
Of course, it makes perfect sense that learning about a theory which will widen your intellectual horizons is bad. So, we should all go back to the Middle Ages, where scientific progress was not encouraged. Sometimes, we learn things which we don't want to believe in, but they must be learned for a reason. Even if you don't believe it, learning about evolution will make you an intellectually superior person. If you are thinking about going into Biology or something related, it is assumed you believe in a theory of evolution.

The reason why they don't teach creationism in public schools is because it is not a theory of evolution; it is a religious belief. For any scientific belief to be taught in schools, there must be some evidence that it occurred. Both theories of evolution have some level of proof. Creationism does not satisified that requirement. I have never heard of any scientific evidence supporting creationism.

The best I can say is keep an open mind, for I believe creationism and evolution are not irreconcilable. Who says they both cannot be true?

[HP26]

Evolution is validly taught in schools today because there is physical evidence to support it. I believe the world and everything that makes it up have evolved, not been created by some higher being. However, I would be willing to learn about creationism as long as a) I wasn't just being taught someone's hypothetical story and b) it wasn't taught to me as fact, but rather I was being informed of another possibility (in addition, of course, to learning evolution)

[ComicBookWorm]

Creationism is just window-dressing on Biblical Genesis. The world is only 6000-10,000 years old depending on the opinion. Fossils are just the result of Noah's flood (or put there by the devil to confuse us). There is no evolution (or just maybe they'll permit small changes in a species). Dinosaurs died out in the flood. All of this is repudiated by radiometric dating and knowledge about mountain-building and fossil creation. When creationists are shown evolution in action with horse or elephant fossils that show tranisitional forms and fascinating evolution over time, they just ignore the evidence and refuse to acknowledge its validity.

It is a denial of many disciplines of science and libraries full of knowledge in order to make the Bible inerrant (infallible). There is side-branch of creationism called intelligent design which concedes that the science is valid and evolution exists, but that God is the one guiding it. However the science works without the interjection of a deity.

There is nothing to study in creationism since it is not an alternative science, it merely exists to provide fanciful reinterpretations of the existing knowledge in order to shoehorn it into the constraints of conforming to Biblical Genesis.

[Max]

Bloody hell! A man after my heart - if you are a man!! :lol:

Well, I thought the name would suggest it but yes I am a man :p

[Musereader]

Don't - you are gonna scare her off with all six of you jumping on her, she's never gonna reply now, overload much. Please reply to them GryffondorGrl.

[Midnightsfire]

Can you name the parts you find inaccurate? Evolution is one of the most universally accepted scientific theories. But really, the incorrectness of theories is the beauty of science -- our view of the world is always shapen according to the latest findings, never stagnating, and mankind's progress owes itself to science.I agree that man's current progress is due to science. However, Darwin's evolution theory hasn't been scrutinized as other theories (believe it or not). As indepth as Darwin went, there was far more material that was left vague. (He seemed to undertand that the eye and other complex structures posed a problem for his theory of evolution, which required that such structures arise over many generations, step-by-step. the human blood clotting mechanism was yet another puzzle...) When presented, he'd usually just give out examples of such things instead.

[Chiasma]

I agree that man's current progress is due to science. However, Darwin's evolution theory hasn't been scrutinized as other theories (believe it or not).

What makes you say that? and what other theories are you comparing it with?

As indepth as Darwin went, there was far more material that was left vague.
Such as? And is it still vague 150 years later?

(He seemed to undertand that the eye and other complex structures posed a problem for his theory of evolution,
Are you talking about this common misquote?

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. - Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st Ed., p. 186.
It is often quoted out of context, here is the entire qoute in context -
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."Darwin then continued with three more pages describing these graduations, from simple aggregates of pigment-cells to deppressions filled with gelatinous matter witha clear cornea-like covering to the complexity of human eyes. (If anyone wants to see what Darwin said about eye evolution fro themselves the Origin of Species is available online here (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/) .)

which required that such structures arise over many generations, step-by-step. the human blood clotting mechanism was yet another puzzle...) When presented, he'd usually just give out examples of such things instead.
Could you explain why these things you mentioned are problems?

[halfbreedlover]

What evolution fails to explain is how whole organs developed. It explains how a species adapts to the environment in little ways. Those with stronger immune systems are more likely to survive an epidemic. In the Galapogos, birds with smaller beaks are more likely to survive food shortages.

What many scientists are asking today is how did we "evolve" complex organs like stomachs or lungs? How did we make that jump from primitive single-celled organs to fish?

That's really the only flaw with evolution that I know. I haven't discounted the entire theory as a result, because evolution definitely happens. Viruses get used to anti-biotics because those that are more resistant survive to reproduce, microbiologists have observed this under microscopes.

Chiasma, you should not accept evolution without question because then you are doing the same thing the creationists are doing. It's not science to just accept something. Evolution is just a theory, admitted it's the best one we have, but it's still just a theory.

[Chiasma]

What evolution fails to explain is how whole organs developed. It explains how a species adapts to the environment in little ways. Those with stronger immune systems are more likely to survive an epidemic. In the Galapogos, birds with smaller beaks are more likely to survive food shortages.

What many scientists are asking today is how did we "evolve" complex organs like stomachs or lungs? How did we make that jump from primitive single-celled organs to fish?

That's really the only flaw with evolution that I know, I haven't discounted the entire theory as a result, because evolution definitely happens. Viruses get used to anti-biotics because those that are more resistant survive to reproduce, microbiologists have observed this under microscopes.


I still don't see the flaw. Why can't evolution explain the development of organs? What is it that the evolutionary processes lack that would prevent organs evolving?

When I look at the living world i see transition; we have simple single cell organisms, more complicated unicellular organisms, simple multicelluler organism, more complicated multicellular organisms, primitive animals like sponges, etc. I see trends in the animal kingdom - asymmetrical body plan to radial symmetry to bilateral symmetry, no tissue layers to diploblasty to triploblasty, acoelomate to pseudocoelomate to coelomate, etc. The transition from unicellular organisms to vertabrates seems to me to be entirely possible.



Chiasma, you should not accept evolution without question because then you are doing the same thing the creationists are doing. It's not science to just accept something. Evolution is just a theory, admitted it's the best one we have, but it's still just a theory.

Why do you think I accept it unquestionly? I have studied evolution in detail at college and when I start my honours degree at university next year I will learn a lot more. I think evolution is a facinating subject and I have evaluated the evidence, I also listen to the other side, but nothing I have heard from them stands up to scruitiny. I'm always interested in learning more and everything I have learnt so far makes sense.

[Midnightsfire]

I still don't see the flaw. Why can't evolution explain the development of organs? What is it that the evolutionary processes lack that would prevent organs evolving?

I am not saying that it can't explain it. I'm saying it hasn't...yet. (For all the research in the world, it has yet to do so.)

And since the weekend is coming up, I'll get as scientifically detailed as any biology major can make it...(which will make many get cross-eyed with boredom, I'm sure. Dry stuff.)

We write not to convince, but to excite inquiry. We ask our readers not for belief, but for doubt of their own infallibility on this question; we ask for inquiry and patient experiment before hastily concluding that we are, all of us, mere dupes and idiots as regards a subject to which we have devoted our best mental faculties and powers of observation for many years."

Alfred R. Wallace (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Wallace.html) who developed the theory of natural selection independently of Charles Darwin, which he published the same year as Darwin and is considered a co-author)

Ironic...Wallace believed in spirituality yet came to similar conclusions as Darwin, who had thoughts derived from more of a pure scientific viewpoint. Most interesting.

A great pity that most in the scientific community refuse to even consider such as that that would challenge the more popular thoughts/theories:

From another thread:

Wallace also believed that anatomically modern humans were quite a bit older than current theory suggests. He accepted the discoveries of J.D. Whitney, which by modern geological reckoning, places humans in California up to 50 million years ago. Wallace noted that such evidence tended to be "attacked with all the weapons of doubt, accusation and ridicule." He suggested that "the proper way to treat evidence as to man's antiquity is to place it on record, and admit it provisionally wherever it would be held adequate in the case of other animals; not, as is too often now the case, to ignore it as unworthy of acceptance or subject its discoverers to indiscriminate accusations of being imposters or the victims of imposters."



'all the weapons of doubt, accusation and ridicule...'

[halfbreedlover]

I still don't see the flaw. Why can't evolution explain the development of organs? What is it that the evolutionary processes lack that would prevent organs evolving?

The only times we have observed evolution is with small things like microbes, or a shift in beak size. Perhaps, some tortoises have different body/shell shapes due to their environment. Those with that type of shape were better adapted and survived to reproduce. This works fine on that level.

There remains no explanation as to how animals suddenly emerged with a circulatory system. The fossils we have seem to suggest this, yet this doesn't make sense to many in science.

When I look at the living world i see transition; we have simple single cell organisms, more complicated unicellular organisms, simple multicelluler organism, more complicated multicellular organisms, primitive animals like sponges, etc. I see trends in the animal kingdom - asymmetrical body plan to radial symmetry to bilateral symmetry, no tissue layers to diploblasty to triploblasty, acoelomate to pseudocoelomate to coelomate, etc. The transition from unicellular organisms to vertabrates seems to me to be entirely possible.

You're merely citing developments in the history of organisms. You're not really addressing the question of how evolution could have played a part in this. How did they suddenly grow an extra cell? How did an organism evolve from having an asymmetrical body plan to radial and symmetrical? That's a pretty radical change.

I'm not discounting evolution. I find it much more credible than creationism, which has never been observed or proved on any level. This is the one thing question that still remains about it, perhaps it will be explained in the future, but as of now no one seems to have the answer.

[Chiasma]

And since the weekend is coming up, I'll get as scientifically detailed as any biology major can make it...(which will make many get cross-eyed with boredom, I'm sure. Dry stuff.)
I've been wondering about this for a while, as I'm not familiar with the US education system, what exactly is a Biology major (or any other major)? what level is? how old are you when you do it? I've often seen people saying they're majoring in something or other and I never know what they mean, but I think you do it at college?

halfbreedlover,
Well I don't really know enough about the area, and I admit I do find it hard to imagine, but just because I can't picture something doesn't make it impossible.
I have heard of Hox genes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_genes) however, they regulate development. I know a lot of research is being done about them, because if the mutate it can lead to big changes in how an animal develops, e.g. in the link it says that duplication can result in new body segments and this is thought to have been involved in the evolution of segmented animals.
I also found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology) link interesting.

[Zorkwap]

Doesn't it work that God is the missing link, because if all things were made by him, wouldn't they then share some common characteristics?? ( i personally don't believe in evolution)

[ComicBookWorm]

I agree that man's current progress is due to science. However, Darwin's evolution theory hasn't been scrutinized as other theories (believe it or not). As indepth as Darwin went, there was far more material that was left vague. (He seemed to undertand that the eye and other complex structures posed a problem for his theory of evolution, which required that such structures arise over many generations, step-by-step. the human blood clotting mechanism was yet another puzzle...) When presented, he'd usually just give out examples of such things instead.


There are examples of many transitional eye forms from a simple light sensitive patch all the way to the modern mammalian eye. Darwin lived a long time ago, scientists have significantly added to our knowledge of life since then.

Doesn't it work that God is the missing link, because if all things were made by him, wouldn't they then share some common characteristics?? ( i personally don't believe in evolution)And if they evolved independently from common ancestors they would also share DNA and characteristics.

The only times we have observed evolution is with small things like microbes, or a shift in beak size. Perhaps, some tortoises have different body/shell shapes due to their environment. Those with that type of shape were better adapted and survived to reproduce. This works fine on that level.

There remains no explanation as to how animals suddenly emerged with a circulatory system. The fossils we have seem to suggest this, yet this doesn't make sense to many in science.



You're merely citing developments in the history of organisms. You're not really addressing the question of how evolution could have played a part in this. How did they suddenly grow an extra cell? How did an organism evolve from having an asymmetrical body plan to radial and symmetrical? That's a pretty radical change.

I'm not discounting evolution. I find it much more credible than creationism, which has never been observed or proved on any level. This is the one thing question that still remains about it, perhaps it will be explained in the future, but as of now no one seems to have the answer.There are innumerable minor mutations and variations in all species. Sometimes these are beneficial and sometimes they are not. The ones that are beneficial have been called "hopeful monsters" by Stephen Jay Gould since their differences can be beneficial when the right environmental condition comes along. They don't decide to grow another cell, they have a random mututation with another cell and it comes in handy for some reason.

[Byrum]

As people often quote the Bible and religion in this thread, I think it is still on topic to mention this here.

A few days ago in Study of Religion we were learning about the 'missions' as they were called, basically the religious centres that were set up way out in the outback in Australia to convert and control Aborigines. Anyway, one of the reasons that they did this was based on Darwins evolutionary model, that people with different cranial structure (flatter noses, broader faces, sharper features, stuff like that) were inferior to the softer features of the Europeans according to Darwins 'survival of the fittest' theory.

Anyway the reason I mention this is because being Church (and very evangelical churches at the time) run, these centres were operating and one of their main arguments for this form of racism was Darwins evolutionary model. How is this possible, as the Church seemingly favours its own creationist theory? My point is that (at least) the Christian Churches of Australia were willing to use Darwins theories to support things like the Stolen Generation, yet are seemingly so quick to condemn it.

If anyone thinks I have got this wrong or I am missing some vital peice of information please let me know.

[Wab]

The rationalisation was that the Aboriginal race could not survive culturally and it was thought that it would be better if Aborigines could be brought up in white society and taught a useful skill like house keeping to complete the transition.

Unfortunately this enlightened ideal (by the standards of the day) was hampered by two fundamental flaws: the first was ham-fisted administration and the second was that it was complete bollocks.

The missions were merely used as faciltators of the relocation program. Basically the law held that anyone of Aboriginal descent was deemed an unfit parent and, therefore, the children were wards of the state to be housed where the authorities saw fit.

[Byrum]

Exactly, also there was something in there about them dying out because of their inferior genetics to cope with European diseases, so basically they were removing them way out into the desert so they could just disappear unnoticed.

[Wab]

By the time the program started most were already in the desert because it was their traditional land or they'd been forced from the coast.

[MoodyHarry]

Doesn't it work that God is the missing link, because if all things were made by him, wouldn't they then share some common characteristics?? ( i personally don't believe in evolution)
God the missing link? It must have a hell of a sense of humour considering the state of the world.

Uh, doubt it. And why would you think that god would make everything the same.

So how do you explain a small island in the ocean where - because of tectonic plate movement - was completely separated from the mainland. The animals that happened to be stuck on there changed differently then the exact same species that stayed on the main continent.

Certain birds and mammals grew to enormous size because there was no natural predators on the island that prevents this growth. No predators meant these species could flourish.

Of course, God could just have been bored, and zapped these animals to grow large just for the fun of it. :rolleyes:

Well, I thought the name would suggest it but yes I am a man :p
Hey man, you never know. Just wanted to be sure! :p

[MajorBarcalow]

Wouldn't it be more useful to say that we humans only know a limited amount of information at this point in time, and because of this limited amount of information, we can only speculate and deduce on what we currently know.

Show me where I said anything to the contrary.

Then demonstrate how this relates to my post.

[Pythia]

As people often quote the Bible and religion in this thread, I think it is still on topic to mention this here.

A few days ago in Study of Religion we were learning about the 'missions' as they were called, basically the religious centres that were set up way out in the outback in Australia to convert and control Aborigines. Anyway, one of the reasons that they did this was based on Darwins evolutionary model, that people with different cranial structure (flatter noses, broader faces, sharper features, stuff like that) were inferior to the softer features of the Europeans according to Darwins 'survival of the fittest' theory.

Anyway the reason I mention this is because being Church (and very evangelical churches at the time) run, these centres were operating and one of their main arguments for this form of racism was Darwins evolutionary model. How is this possible, as the Church seemingly favours its own creationist theory? My point is that (at least) the Christian Churches of Australia were willing to use Darwins theories to support things like the Stolen Generation, yet are seemingly so quick to condemn it.

If anyone thinks I have got this wrong or I am missing some vital peice of information please let me know.

I would like to answer this if I may. This is a very common misconception which confuses biological evolution with cultural evolution. I am doing an archaeology degree and covered this topic recently.

As you all know Darwin proposed the theory of biological evolution based on the natural world and its central ideas were those of random variation, adaptation and natural selection. It proposed a theory of how species had evolved from other species over a long period of time.

Cultural evolution can be traced back to Herbert Spencer in the 19th century. Prior to that 16th century explorers had encountered native peoples in America and other parts of the world and what struck them was their difference. Here were peoples who practised none of the 'civilised' arts - they went naked, had no formal code of law, no state, and no christian religion. But these 'savages' could act in noble and civilised ways. For 16th century Europeans this was hard to explain. The solution was to suggest that perhaps 'we', the civilised peoples of Europe, were like this in the past. Perhaps, such savages represented some sort of lower or earlier order of human existence from which Renaissance 'Man' had evolved.

Spencer elaborated the idea that all human societies move from a less to a more complex state and linked this to notions of morality and human 'progress'. Spencer thought that 'civilised' society was more moral than 'savagery'. He also thought that progress was more than just moral belief. The new positivist Science had given us the ability to objectively measure and confirm our belief in progress. Spencer gave this belief in progress a scientific mandate.

These ideas were very popular in an age of imperialism. It meant that Europeans were fitted to govern because they had progressed. Their culture had evolved more than the native peoples. Native peoples were viewed as wanting to aspire to progress to civilised states, but that the progress might well be very slow, so slow as to be imperceptible to the contemporary observer, as upward progress had been slow in the origins of civilisation in the first place.

So although both use the term evolution they are in fact very different things. Cultural evolution just takes the basic premise of biological evolution that things change over a long period time. CE applied it in a very racist imperialistic way to human society. European society was the pinnacle of this evolution to which all other cultures were striving to reach. This idea was never proposed or advocated by Darwin, but was an application of his theory used by others.