Evolution

[someguy]

OK so it wold branch out from another topic if I had adressed evolution in it there so here is a thread to deal with evolution. Just as long as it intrests people and has something to do with evolution this should work.
Everybody here knows at least about evolution generally right? This is of course about biological evolution mainly.
So there is apparently scientific evidence for it so would anybody like to try and prove it.
Anybody here want to show it isn't real or show how the devil(or what ever you chose to use here) is trying to trick us. Sorry about that if you belive it but I'm seriously doubtfull that the devil planted fossils to trick us into beliving in evoltion.

 

[Touch Of Death]

OK I'll start. Darwin never said man evolved from the ape.
Sean

 

[ShaolinWolf]

Creation Science Evangelist Dr. Kent Hovind Says this:
"I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. See web site for details."

www.drdino.com

And no one has yet to come up with evidence. So what they are teaching in school is junk. If they say that you can't prove Christianity because there is no "physical" evidence, how can you prove evolution with no evidence? The most ludicrous Idea I ever heard was teaching a false creation in school.

 

[someguy]

Darwin I think refrained from using the word evolution and onl used it once in his paper. Actually another intresting thing about when Darwin wrote his paper there was another paper writen about it published the day after Darwin's I think. It might have been abit more but it was close.
Now as for proof this should be fun to prove it. If only I could contact my archeology teacher right now I might be able to do abit better of a job.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sigh. Well, this will be completely useless.

Nevertheless and just for kicks, I refer you to Stephen Jay Gould's excellent work on this subject.

Fundamentally, here's the issue: religion is by definition an idealism; its account of what's real rests upon the notion that Ideals, themselves not material, are the ground of what's reality.

Science is a materialism: its proofs rest on material evidence, not faith and not books.

By definition, then, the truths of religion are not provable--or disprovable--in scientific terms.

Anyone who wishes to ignore the mountain of scientfic hard evidence for evolution is welcome to do so. It's silly, because it has nothing to do with their religious beliefs, but they're welcome to do so.

Less silly and less harmless are the claims that science should teach religious beliefs such as, "intelligent design theory." Less silly and less harmless, too, is the reiteration of claims such as, "there's no evidence," or, "the scientific theories change, so they're wrong," or, "evolution destroys faith and morality," that we now have to hear all the time. These are less silly and less harmless because they demand ignorance of what science is, blindness to the facts, and unreason. They are also dangerous because of the reiterated claim that Christians can't go along with the theory of evolution, which is just plain pernicious nonsense.

The real things at stake are: a) fear of the modern world; b) anxiety about, "not being special," c) concern about tracing our ancestry back to Africa, which is where the human race (and there's only the one) came from, because then, well, we're all related.

It's a shame that some folks fear reality so much. Even more, it's a shame to see the return of these silly arguments.

 

[Phoenix44]

I don't mean to be offensive, but do you folks ever read the newspaper? Do you read books? Do you ever go to a museum? Watch a documentary? Read Scientific American? Did you ever take a science course or two? Do you ever do any scientific research on your own? Do you know what "peer review" means? How about "double blind"? Do you know any history? Geography?

Being ignorant makes you very easy prey for people with strong personal, political, or religious agendas. All they have to do is yell loudly enough, and frequently enough.

"Lose weight safely with ephedra!"

"We KNOW there are weapons of mass destruction, and we KNOW where they are!"

"There is NO evidence for evolution!"

Take your pick.

 

[Cryozombie]

"There is NO evidence for evolution!"

Take your pick.

Actually... if you consider a lot of the "evidence" is either contradictory or been proven to be fraudulent... it's still reasonable to question the validity of it. Yes, evolution DOES occur, but I have yet to see solid proof that any species has ever "evolved" into a new or different species. Even the "Neandrathal man" fossils we have found are now believed to be a "normal" human skeleton deformed by Rickets and Arthritis. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

Piltdown man was proven to be a hoax... so was the "Nebraska man" who was the used as the basis of evidence for evolution in the Scopes Monkey Trials... (source: Henry M. Morris & Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science?, [Master Books 1987], pp.155-156)


So I have ask, where is the SOLID scientific evidence that we used to be monkeys? The scientific community is full of as much speculation as the religious community... I think some People just feel it easier to legitimize science "fiction" then religious "fiction". The only FACT is that NEITHER SIDE has PROOF, just ideas and beliefs.

 

[Cthulhu]

So I have ask, where is the SOLID scientific evidence that we used to be monkeys?

The above phrase, and 'descended from an ancestor common to monkeys' does not mean the same thing.

Cthulhu

 

[Cryozombie]

Anyone who wishes to ignore the mountain of scientfic hard evidence for evolution is welcome to do so. It's silly, because it has nothing to do with their religious beliefs, but they're welcome to do so.

Of course "evolution" has been proven, that evolution being that a single species will continue to breed stronger, more positive traits, and weaker ones will die off... Girraffe's are a perfect example of that... but Can you share some hard evidence that we were once monkeys?

I don't mean the theory showing the missing 5 or six steps in the evolutionary chain that scientfic hard evidence cannot prove yet, but has failed over and over again to prove, I mean the real scientfic hard evidence that shows me my ancestor was a monkey.

If you can show me that I will come out there and buy you a very expensive meal and share a drink with you.

 

[Cryozombie]

The above phrase, and 'descended from an ancestor common to monkeys' does not mean the same thing.

Cthulhu

Well, hell, That's misleading...

I could say I am "decended from an ancestor common to whales" and it would be true because we are both mammals, therefore "common"...

 

[Cruentus]

Creation Science Evangelist Dr. Kent Hovind Says this:
"I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. See web site for details."

www.drdino.com

And no one has yet to come up with evidence. So what they are teaching in school is junk. If they say that you can't prove Christianity because there is no "physical" evidence, how can you prove evolution with no evidence? The most ludicrous Idea I ever heard was teaching a false creation in school.

How would you like it if I told you there was "no evidence" that Jesus ever existed, so what they teach at your church is junk?

I hate it when people do that. You have evidence to support christianity, which you choose to believe. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, which you choose not to believe.

If you want to refute the evidence, that is one thing, but to say their is "no evidence" is an insult.

Evolution to me is a sound scientific theory; it's truth or untruth won't change my religious beliefs.
__________________

 

[Cruentus]

On too material evidence....

There is probably more material evidence to support evolution then my religious beliefs, but who am I but a heathen for saying so.

 

[heretic888]

I agree 100% with Robert's post on the thread, excluding this:

Science is a materialism: its proofs rest on material evidence, not faith and not books.

Scientific process is not, by definition or nature, strictly material. Much of science (in various fields) rests heavily on what could be regarded as mental or logical "evidence" (physics, mathematics, psychology, anthropology, etc).

I would say it is empirical, however, which rests on following the scientific process through to its end (whether in material or non-material applications). As such, "blind faith" is definately out of the picture.

The entire basis of the scientific process rests on three points (or so sayeth Thomas Kuhn): 1) an injunction or practice, 2) a datum or illumination disclosed by said injunction, and 3) validation by others that have also performed said injunction. Very basic stuff, really.

All that really means is 1) if you do this, 2) you'll gain knowledge of this, and 3) others can also do this and test the knowledge you gained. Very, very, very basic stuff.

Regarding evolution --- its a theory. I suggest you go up to your high school biology teacher and ask what a theory really is. Not what it means in the common, everyday vernacular --- but what the term means in science. There is as much scientific proof for evolution as there is for the cell. Only those with an agenda will claim otherwise.

Laterz.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

hmmmm...nice come back, but here's my touche(you won't agree, obviously). The Bible. 2000yrs(the Bible) vs. 200(Darwin). Darwin's "truths" have been disproven more over the past 200 yrs than anything anyone could muster against the Bible other than people claiming that Jesus wasn't real, he was only a man, etc.(not that I believe any of that...I believe He was real) I think that's pretty good grounds. Of course you'll want more than that. But then, we'd be getting off topic. So, please stay on topic or Nightinggale will be getting her topic-bat, ok?

:asian:

P.S. The whole thing with Evolution vs. Christianity is irrelevant. It's Evolution vs. Creationism. Stay on that one. Another thing, has Creationism been disproven? No. Evolution? HECK YEAH! So that's why this creationist is putting up $250,000 for any proof of evolution. I don't see an evolutionist doing something that bold. And its not stupid. The evolutionist would be so embarrased.

 

[arnisador]

See also:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11990

 

[heretic888]

hmmmm...nice come back, but here's my touche(you won't agree, obviously). The Bible.

I already tore apart the notion that the Bible can be used as a "historical document" in the Judeo-Christian Wackiness thread. I don't care to repeat the same proofs again.

Suffice to say, you're the only person here that has publicly professed faith in the Bible as literal history, so you may want to come up with a more cogent basis if you wish to "disprove" a theory so well-grounded as evolution.

2000yrs(the Bible) vs. 200(Darwin).

The time a "truth" is held has nothing to do with its validity. For millenia, the world believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around our planet. Both are now thoroughly discredited.

Darwin's "truths" have been disproven more over the past 200 yrs than anything anyone could muster against the Bible other than people claiming that Jesus wasn't real, he was only a man, etc.(not that I believe any of that...I believe He was real) I think that's pretty good grounds.

That claim is, in fact, a lie.

There have been far more arguments leveled against traditional Biblical literalism (going as far back as 400 years) than against either Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. And, unlike the anti-Darwin claims, many of the Biblical critiques actually have a basis in science.

In any event, although I know Darwin is such a hot topic to many "true believers", his theories and proofs aren't generally looked upon that highly among modern biologists and evolutionists. That'd be like saying Freud is the paragon of modern psychology --- when, the truth is, modern experts in both fields (biology and psychology) generally discredit a lot of their claims.

More comprehensive and empirical theories of evolution are generally relied upon by today's scientists, and an exclusive "survival of the fittest" (a phrase Darwin never used) is usually not the standard approach.

Laterz.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

And obviously, the wools been pulled over your eyes. The time and validity is proven. Let's see, if I remember right, A man by the name Colombus actually found out the world is round. He challenged it. Yet, it didn't take him 2000 or more years to disprove it. There has been more proof of the Bible found by unbelieving scholars of history.

As to the darwin thing, Let me remind you that they have not come up with a valid proof of Evolution, only assumptions. NOT PROOF! Of course, they have come up with fraudulent stuff and the missing links, but then again that's fraudulent. The Coelecanth, that fish they said was a missing link? Shoot, they found it still swimming around today and it was in the same layers as or before the animal they said it had evolved from or to. And then there have been plenty of findings of animals in the wrong time layers(can't think what the word is, please someone correct me, it's late, not stratosphere...ok anyways). Man, heck even Dinosaurs are still living today. (you wany proof of dinosaurs? I'll give you it, but only if you ask nicely...)

:asian:

 

[heretic888]

The whole thing with Evolution vs. Christianity is irrelevant. It's Evolution vs. Creationism. Stay on that one.

Actually, its science vs blind faith. That's what it all really boils down to.

Another thing, has Creationism been disproven?

Depends what you mean.

Nobody has not, and cannot, emphatically "prove" that a Higher Power does not exist. Namely, because it is (usually) impossible to prove a negative. Simple logic.

If, however, you are referring to traditional explanations of history based on the Biblical genesis --- well, yeah, that pretty much has been disproven.

Evolution? HECK YEAH!

Another bold-faced lie.

Evolution, again, is a theory. You obviously don't know what that word means in science, so let me explain. Among a theory's many definitions and connotations it means:

"A time-tested hypothesis that has yet to be countered."

This applies not only to the Theory of Evolution, but to the Cell Theory, as well. There has been, to date, no major counterevidence provided against either. Any high school biology teacher will tell you this stuff --- its very basic.

Simply claiming a theory as been "disproved" doesn't actually make it so.

So that's why this creationist is putting up $250,000 for any proof of evolution. I don't see an evolutionist doing something that bold. And its not stupid.

Actually, its very, very stupid.

Such behavior is EXTREMELY reminiscent of the "online challenges" provided by Ashida Kim at his website. And equally dubious. I bet you would find a history of the challenger "being sick" whenever an offer is accepted.

That online challenge is the mentality of a child, not a mature scientist. The scientist would attempt to discuss the issue among a review of peers, not offer schoolyard "challenges" on the internet for the ignorant. There is a reason you won't find that kind of behavior among any scientific or scholastic review.

Heh. Laterz.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

As to the validity of the Bible being historically accurate(Nightingale, please don't hit me, I'm not going to totally go off subject), go to the Judeo-Christian Wackiness ...I'll post it there

 

[heretic888]

The time and validity is proven. Let's see, if I remember right, A man by the name Colombus actually found out the world is round. He challenged it. Yet, it didn't take him 2000 or more years to disprove it.

What are you talking about?? People believed the world was flat for thousands of years prior to Colombus. Again, the amount of time a belief is held has no relationship to its viability.

There has been more proof of the Bible found by unbelieving scholars of history.

Uhhh... right.

How rewritings of Egyptian and Babylonian myths are regarded as "proof" is beyond me.

As to the darwin thing, Let me remind you that they have not come up with a valid proof of Evolution, only assumptions. NOT PROOF!

Uh-huh. I guess they "made up" all those fossil records with their "Satanic" instruments, too.

Man, heck even Dinosaurs are still living today. (you wany proof of dinosaurs? I'll give you it, but only if you ask nicely...)

At this point, I don't think anyone can take any of your claims for "scientific proof" very seriously. But thanks for your time.