Evolution

[Darbex]

I am sorry but in my opinion to claim what is happening by people like me who push for creationism to be taught in schools as being a threat to the world and censorship of science is ridiculous. And he is doing exactly what he said Europeans shouldnt do. Granted there will be some who wish to completely rule out what science has taught us. But most christian right believe that the two can co-exist at the same time. I agree with Nacra99 all of science is predicated on the single truth of observation. We have not seen Macro-evolution so as science would go its still a theory or hunch just like the big bang theory as we assume it has happened because with our knowledge we cannot figure out another solution to the problem of when and how it all started and the visual proof that the galaxies are speeding apart from each other. I know this is an evolution thread but its similar for non-creationists. Tell me what is your theory on the big bang. Why did all of the sudden a single reaction in an infinite space of nothing create the vast galaxies and universe as we know it? Where did this single point in space come from? And what caused the reaction? I have yet to find an answer that is anything other than I dont know. Why is it so easy for scientists and some of you to believe that this just happened and the universe was created from a bang and yet its impossible to give any credence to the idea that their is a divine creator that willed this to happen? Arent we all talking about a belief? Yet a lot of non-christians make it out that the christians are stupid and fantastical for believing in this "God" yet arent you all also being fantastical in believing in the big bang theory?

[Nickintex]

Sorry, big bang theory is just not as important to me as interpreting fossil record and trying to understand life on this planet throughout the ages. In an alternate universe, I'm sure I am a vertebrate paleontologist.

[Darbex]

But the overall question is where and how it all started right? Either way we are talking about the big bang theory either the creation of the universe or the big bang theory that sparked life from some primordial soup.

[Nickintex]

Some people do believe in both evolution and creation simultaneously. I see no harm in that.
I'm still waiting for the day that protesters will show up and form picket lines at the Science Museums. I say it's bound to happen in my lifetime.

[Nickintex]

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dinosaur-extinction.htm

I'll have to read that another time.

But here's the answer to the alleged dinosaur and human trackway:

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/paluxy.php

[myjohnson]

But the overall question is where and how it all started right? Either way we are talking about the big bang theory either the creation of the universe or the big bang theory that sparked life from some primordial soup.

The starter of that primordial soup is God.

[myjohnson]

Some people do believe in both evolution and creation simultaneously. I see no harm in that.

That is exactly how I see it.

[Mzungu]

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dinosaur-extinction.htm

I'll have to read that another time.

But here's the answer to the alleged dinosaur and human trackway:

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/paluxy.php

That first link is a pretty short page, Nick, so it won't take long to read it. I actually read the links that Charles posted for HOURS last night. What I found was the creationists are using a bit of faulty reasoning and assumptions on many of their claims. Also, they're still using 'evidence' that has been disproved again and again.

From the second link you posted, Nick, there was another link that took me to this page:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Interestingly, it's compiled by the guy who was accused of damaging the Paluxy footprints by their discoverer. Regardless of that drama, it's still an example of how lots of this 'evidence' has already been disproved.

[Mzungu]

15 pages....thats alot to read but very interesting indeed. This debate has reverenced many aspects of religion but only minor references to politics or Evolution as it pertains to the religious/political aspects of this discussion. Every thing we are taught in school is derived from spiritual or scientific falsehood. Theres simply no scientific evidence confirming the existence of any god or the extremly out of control Theory of evolution. Theres NO, NONE, ZIP, ZERO scientific evidence proving anything about these two unfortunate and misleading works from hundreds of years ago by ppl who knew nothing about the stars,earth,GOD and just wanted a way to explain why things are the way they are. Does this remind any of you of something(mythology)?
Darwin tried to explain his carzy theory but the more he tried the more he realized his theory was doomed. ( i can provide many quotes from Darwin and some of the darwinian followers confirming this)
I just joined yesterday and i dont want to butt in to this discussion without facts sooo i'll provide a few in respect to evolution and why it is flawed IMHO.

First lets take a look at the fossil reccords of the sedimentary layers that were layed down supposedly millions of years ago.(these records are used by scientist to try to find "the missing link" to prove a jump from one species to another(which is impossible because DNA coding doesnt allow this, whats in your DNA code is what you will be. theres no changing it)
The cambrian period of earth is where we find fossils, the fossils in this period are as they are today(except for extinct species) theres no fossils before this period (precambrian), nothing to show a precurser to evolution, its just an explosion of life with nothing before it. Theres no half fish half mammal to show one species jump to another any where in the fossil reccords(only life as we know it today) and after thousands of years theres no evidence showing species are still evolving. How can evolution work so well for millions of years and then just stop! Are we perfect now and theres no need for further elvolving? The dating of fossil reccords rely on circular resoning. This is to say The sedimentary layers of earth are dated according to the fossils that are incased in it but the fossils incased in the layers are dated by the layers that contain the fossils. There are many other examples of circular reasoning i can list that are used by evolutionist and creationist alike but im trying to make this post as short as possible and still try to get my point across. I need scientific proven fact to show me that creationist and evolutionist(not unsubstantiated books by people who lived hundreds of years ago who had no grasp on reality ie: Darwins "origins of the species" and the "Bible". Scientifically proven facts are not listed in this thread of 15 pages, i see no proof that god ever exsisted at all, just the ramblings in a book( and theres many different versions), of course thats not the intent of this thread but i did see references to evolution and wanted to add my .02 cents.

I dont believe in God or evolution and with the way the country is going to hell in a handbag i dont believe in the government either. The gov is slowly taking away our rights this country was founded on.

I apologize for the ramblings of my wilted mind but i need evidence, proven evidence, nothing more nothing less.

I took your post from the Church and State thread because I thought it had many things in it to continue this discussion, as well.

Can I ask exactly what you mean by your statement I put in bold? How can you say that species are not still evolving? I've read about tons of species that have evolved just in our lifetime alone...

[IMIGHT]

Can you please provide a detailed list of the species of which you are refering to ? Please list what the species was and what species it evolved into, also please note that there are many changes/varieties of a species due to a wide gene pool(sub-species) and can not be considered evolved into different species ie: Darwins finches :On the Galapagos islands Darwin discovered some finches which had blown in from South America and had adapted to their new enviroment producing several sub-species, Darwin thought this showed cross-species evolution and paraded it as fact(On the origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Presevation of favored Races in the struggle for Life , published in 1859)( Origins of the Species original/full title) but in reality the finch was still a finch and did not evolve into an eagle. Please excuse the reference of a 1859 book but thats where the theory of Evolution started.

[Mzungu]

I didn't say that different species have evolved. (Not saying that they haven't, just saying that that is a completely different area than that of which I was referencing.)

The area I was referencing was that of species that have evolved. Just because a species has evolved doesn't mean that it has evolved into a separate species.

I encourage everyone to read the following:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

[IMIGHT]

I didn't say that different species have evolved. (Not saying that they haven't, just saying that that is a completely different area than that of which I was referencing.)

The area I was referencing was that of species that have evolved. Just because a species has evolved doesn't mean that it has evolved into a separate species.

I encourage everyone to read the following:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html

A manipulation of words and the link you posted is the opinions of the author, my/your post are as well. Survival of the fittest, who's the fittest, the one that survives. Yet another example of manipulating words and circular reasoning. I can provide links, quotes and citations as well but they are just opinions and not actual fact because theres no scientific proof of evolution or creationism and you have not provided any list of species who have evolved and not just created a sub-species. No matter how you look at it Darwins finches were still finches and not evolved into a seperate species through isolation/time, they were just sub-species. I believe you have confused evolution with sub-species and call it evolution.

[Mzungu]

I believe you have confused evolution with sub-species and call it evolution.

Hmm, no, sorry.

Like I said in my first post in this thread, if those that speak against evolution actually learned what the term "evolution" was, it would be pretty hard to argue against it.

I think this little explanation is a pretty concise statement on the definition of evolution. (Sorry that it's from an atheist site - it was the best that I've found so far just googling "definition of evolution.")

From http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutio...efinition.htm:

Evolution can be a confusing term because it is used in more than one way. Many people in the general population have developed an incorrect understanding of evolution for a number of reasons. One is the misinformation spread by creationists — by misrepresenting evolution, they may hope that it will be easier to get people to disregard it. Another is simple ignorance of the topic itself and the specific ways in which science uses certain terminology.

Because evolution is so complex, however, it is important to get a handle on the different ways in which the term can be used. There are, of course, broader uses — we can talk about the evolution of the universe or the evolution of the planet Earth. In such cases, evolution simply refers to change over time, but that isn’t what concerns us here.

Biology, in contrast, uses the term evolution a bit more specifically. At its most basic, evolution in biology can be used to refer either to the change in the gene pool of a population over time or to the concept of descent with modification. Here are some examples from basic biology texts:

“In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.” Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989.

“Biological evolution ...is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual.” Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, 1986.

The two definitions look a bit different, but they are expressing similar things — the first is to a large extent more technical. An allele is a particular form of a gene and if a single gene is responsible for eye color, then one allele is for brown eyes, another allele is for blue eyes, and so on.

So, if the frequency of the allele for blue eyes changes in a population over time, that means that evolution has taken place. This may not seem like a very significant step in evolution, but the fact of the matter is most evolutionary steps are quite small — large changes are the result of many, many smaller steps.

The second common use of the term evolution within biology is for the concept of common descent, the idea that all living beings are descended from a common ancestor. This typically occurs in the context of allele frequencies changing in populations over time, but there are also other factors as well. Thus, “change in allele frequency over time” is a narrow and technical definition of evolution while “descent with modification” is a broader understanding.

[IMIGHT]

First of all let me say i really like discussing this topic and thank you for the opportunity to express my opinions on this matter.

[Mzungu]

First of all let me say i really like discussing this topic and thank you for the opportunity to express my opinions on this matter.

Of course!

What's second?