Evolution

[PLAYER57832]

I am seriously interested in the subject and I don't believe in evolution. I don't know if I am open minded, probably not, but I will see what I can do.

Why not.. or rather, what is it that you don't believe.

One of the most frustrating aspects for me is that a wide majority of people who say they "don't believe in evolution" actually don't understand evolution. Many more have never seen the real evidence (have been led to believe it doesn't exist).

[PLAYER57832]

Matter that has always existed would not be able to CREATE new matter.

Why do you think any matter was created?
That is an assumption taken from absolutely nowhere.

Are you implying that all that exists has always existed?

This is utterly irrelevant to evolution, jay.

Evolution is not really about the beginning of the universe, it is about how life has changed here on Earth. Scientists only have theories about the ultimate origins of life. There is a lot of evidence that the life we see originated from earlier lifeforms, evolved over a very, very long period of time. Whether the absolute origin happened because a series of chemicals came together in a very rare process or whether it was directed by God is not provable and both concepts (along with a couple of others, such as that life here originated elsewhere in microbial form and then was brought here) are consistant with the evolution model.

And, yes, the idea of concurrent time is one of the ideas gaining in popularity. Its not any kind of proof against evolution, at all.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Well, here is another one. Evolution is not science. For a scientific test you must also have the capability to have a negative outcome. Survival of the fittest does not have that ability, making it an untestable theory. If Evolution is built upon survival of the fittest then you have an unprovable theory at its base.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

ITT: we discuss things that are over our heads

Ugh, it's not even fun to make short jokes when you make it this easy for us.

[Haggis_McMutton]

It is contrary to my religious beliefs and logic in a religious sense. Why would God who could create a world, not just create man as it says he did?

I assume you don't take every part of the bible as being literally true. So the question is why did you decide that part is literally true?

Separate from that I have seen a few videos and sites from posts on this site. While they had a lot of good information and were very organized, they still didn't satisfy my doubts. In the video I watched, it was like an hour or two long and I can't remember who posted it, the theory still made assumptions regarding evolution that still left it as a theory. Those assumptions were odd because the same could be said for an intelligent designer.
One specific I believe was the mention of eyeballs.
They said that we must come the same being that had a simple eyeball which is why all of our eyeballs are similar( across species). But the same could be said for intelligent design. It could have been designed in such a way that it was repeatable. I don't remember the exact statements that were made regarding the subject, but to me these assumptions leave a large room for doubt.

Why did god make 99.9% of all species that ever existed go extinct?
Also why did he make 15 species of finches on the Galapagos and gave them the appearance of having evolved from a single ancestor. Was he just trying to trick Darwin?

[kentington]

I am seriously interested in the subject and I don't believe in evolution. I don't know if I am open minded, probably not, but I will see what I can do.

Why not.. or rather, what is it that you don't believe.

One of the most frustrating aspects for me is that a wide majority of people who say they "don't believe in evolution" actually don't understand evolution. Many more have never seen the real evidence (have been led to believe it doesn't exist).

If you read just a little further you would see my answer to your question.

I'll post in here soon. My post will be long and well thought through. I haven't had time to make such a post yet. I didn't think you guys would be spamming up this thread so quickly. But rest assure, I'll do my best to deal with all the silly arguments proposed against evolution and maybe try to change a few minds (assuming there are actually open minded people who don't "believe" in evolution). This is after all my favorite subject.

If you are actually trying to change minds, then it probably wont be the result of calling people's arguments silly. Even if they are silly.
But if you want to argue it and have the people who aren't open minded sling insults back and forth with you go for it.

I am seriously interested in the subject and I don't believe in evolution. I don't know if I am open minded, probably not, but I will see what I can do.

I mean no disrespect to your views but may I ask why you disbelieve evolution given that no comparable scientific theory has been advanced . I assume that you percieve it to be contrary to your religious convictions but that in itself puzzles me , the concept of Inteligent Design surely neatly sidesteps any conflict.
If I am wrong in my assumption then please forgive me but if no religious dogma is involved then total disbelief in evolution seems even odder , doubts I understand but total rejection ?

It is contrary to my religious beliefs and logic in a religious sense. Why would God who could create a world, not just create man as it says he did?

Separate from that I have seen a few videos and sites from posts on this site. While they had a lot of good information and were very organized, they still didn't satisfy my doubts. In the video I watched, it was like an hour or two long and I can't remember who posted it, the theory still made assumptions regarding evolution that still left it as a theory. Those assumptions were odd because the same could be said for an intelligent designer.
One specific I believe was the mention of eyeballs.
They said that we must come the same being that had a simple eyeball which is why all of our eyeballs are similar( across species). But the same could be said for intelligent design. It could have been designed in such a way that it was repeatable. I don't remember the exact statements that were made regarding the subject, but to me these assumptions leave a large room for doubt.

[kentington]

It is contrary to my religious beliefs and logic in a religious sense. Why would God who could create a world, not just create man as it says he did?

I assume you don't take every part of the bible as being literally true. So the question is why did you decide that part is literally true?

Actually, I do take the Bible literally not just this part. I assume you will be surprised and think oh a young earther. But I am looking up some definitions regarding Genesis, but I believe God had already created the heavens and the Earth previous to this point in the Bible. The reason the Earth was empty and void may have had something to do with the fall of Lucifer. But that isn't the point of this thread and I gave a more specific reason below. I am doubtful of evolution and a lot of assumptions regarding it. I don't hate people who believe in evolution or think they are stupid I just think that in science certain assumptions need more backing up.

Separate from that I have seen a few videos and sites from posts on this site. While they had a lot of good information and were very organized, they still didn't satisfy my doubts. In the video I watched, it was like an hour or two long and I can't remember who posted it, the theory still made assumptions regarding evolution that still left it as a theory. Those assumptions were odd because the same could be said for an intelligent designer.
One specific I believe was the mention of eyeballs.
They said that we must come the same being that had a simple eyeball which is why all of our eyeballs are similar( across species). But the same could be said for intelligent design. It could have been designed in such a way that it was repeatable. I don't remember the exact statements that were made regarding the subject, but to me these assumptions leave a large room for doubt.

Why did god make 99.9% of all species that ever existed go extinct?
Also why did he make 15 species of finches on the Galapagos and gave them the appearance of having evolved from a single ancestor. Was he just trying to trick Darwin?

1) I don't know
2) You are assuming He created them with intended purpose of tricking people rather than creating things similar.
This thread isn't about my religion and has to do with evolution.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Actually, I do take the Bible literally not just this part. I assume you will be surprised and think oh a young earther. But I am looking up some definitions regarding Genesis, but I believe God had already created the heavens and the Earth previous to this point in the Bible. The reason the Earth was empty and void may have had something to do with the fall of Lucifer. But that isn't the point of this thread and I gave a more specific reason below. I am doubtful of evolution and a lot of assumptions regarding it. I don't hate people who believe in evolution or think they are stupid I just think that in science certain assumptions need more backing up.

Fair enough.

2 things then.
1. I hate to make an argument from authority, but why do you think virtually all biologists accept evolution as fact. Are they simply wrong? Would you also be similarly skeptical of some things that are accepted as fact by virtually all medical doctors for instance?

2. Did you check out this link I posted in another reply out? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[1] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010.
...
In 2008, Lenski and his collaborators reported on a particularly important adaptation that occurred in one of the populations: the bacteria evolved the ability to use citrate as a source of energy. Wild-type E. coli cannot transport citrate across the cell membrane to the cell interior (where it could be incorporated into the citric acid cycle) when oxygen is present. The consequent lack of growth on citrate under oxic conditions is considered a defining characteristic of the species that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella. Around generation 33,127, the experimenters noticed a dramatically expanded population-size in one of the samples; they found clones in this population could grow on the citrate included in the growth medium to permit iron acquisition.

1) I don't know
2) You are assuming He created them with intended purpose of tricking people rather than creating things similar.
This thread isn't about my religion and has to do with evolution.

As I see it, you can always say "I reject evolution purely because of my faith in my religion" to which I would clearly not have any recourse. However that doesn't seem to be the line you are taking, but instead you seem to be comparing creation vs. evolution as competing theories.

If this line is to be taken, then religion must to be treated as a "hypothesis" of sorts and should suffer some of the tests that scientific hypotheses must suffer. It cannot be that religion is simply the "default" as many people would like. Indeed many arguments about creationism vs. evolution seem to be of the nature.
A: "How did this happen in evolution"
B: "Like This"
A: "Ok, but how did this happen in evolution"
B: "Like This"
A: "Allright, but how did THIS happen in evolution"
B: "We don't know yet"
A: "AHA, I told you god did it"
That's not how competing theories work.

[jimboston]

I'll post in here soon. My post will be long and well thought through. I haven't had time to make such a post yet. I didn't think you guys would be spamming up this thread so quickly. But rest assure, I'll do my best to deal with all the silly arguments proposed against evolution and maybe try to change a few minds (assuming there are actually open minded people who don't "believe" in evolution). This is after all my favorite subject.

I don't want a well though out response... designed to change those minds that are still open to being changed.

I want you to "destroy" people.

That's what you promised in the OP... and I am still waiting!

When does the destruction start???

[Maugena]

Yeah, bro, it's been four days without fulfillment! Whaddafux! /revolt!

[heavycola]

And I know I am generalizing, but it's a Risk forum so please pardon me.

SOMEONE CALL HASBRO™. THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO SLIDE.

[oss spy]

http://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2 ... eationism/

There you go. Creationists, I really hope you stop sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUU!!!!"

[PLAYER57832]

That's funny, asking for proof is a trap statement?

You are really playing with terms here. Yes, change over time happens, and perhaps you could call it evolution. But the idea that species will evolve into other species is most certainly not "more readily proven". Consider how the field of evolution changes its ideas and then look at that statement.
I will leave the last answer here up to you as I think I am highjacking this thread. Tomorrow I have off and will try to start a new thread.

Science theories always begin with incomplete data. That is why they are theories. As more evidence is found, the theories are refined and modified. That is the nature of science.

Your statement is a trap becuase you have not defined what you want proof of.

[Nola_Lifer]

[Maugena]

http://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/the-cutest-response-to-creationism/

There you go. Creationists, I really hope you stop sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUU!!!!"

Nothing new, of course. This has been laid out in front of creationists time and time again and yet is brushed aside just like the very example you linked. It's like a meta? /mindblown

Metadenial?

[AAFitz]

http://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/the-cutest-response-to-creationism/

There you go. Creationists, I really hope you stop sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUU!!!!"

Nothing new, of course. This has been laid out in front of creationists time and time again and yet is brushed aside just like the very example you linked. It's like a meta? /mindblown

Metadenial?

Denial is a very important aspect of evolution. Without it, minds incapable of accepting harsh realities would simply cease to function. Instead, the brain creates delusions for itself so it can function in a made up reality, and honestly, in many of these cases, we're probably better off that they have.

[yang guize]

so christians believe they were created by god, but refuse to believe that their christmas toys were created by santa?
very inconsistent

[PLAYER57832]

You neglect the part where a lot of that has changed, but it remains within the Bible because it is history and provides direction.. of change as much as anything else.

[PLAYER57832]

I am doubtful of evolution and a lot of assumptions regarding it. I don't hate people who believe in evolution or think they are stupid I just think that in science certain assumptions need more backing up.

What assumptions? What additional evidence is needed that you don't see?

Those assumptions were odd because the same could be said for an intelligent designer.

Why do you assume that evolution necessitates no designer?
No such assumption exists... no matter how many supposed scientists and religious individuals each try to make that claim.

Evolution is about a process, not a cause. Plain and simple.

[Nola_Lifer]

You neglect the part where a lot of that has changed, but it remains within the Bible because it is history and provides direction.. of change as much as anything else.

I didn't neglect anything. Kentington said

Actually, I do take the Bible literally

[GreecePwns]

Why did a lot of that change though? Almost all of those things can be attributed to a change in societal values. In other words, a different interpretation (and by interpretation, we are talking about not only what is taken literal and what is not, but what is completely ignored and what is not).

What parts of any religious book other than supernatural aspects are immune to changes in societal values?

[PLAYER57832]

Why did a lot of that change though? Almost all of those things can be attributed to a change in societal values. In other words, a different interpretation (and by interpretation, we are talking about not only what is taken literal and what is not, but what is completely ignored and what is not).

What parts of any religious book other than supernatural aspects are immune to changes in societal values?

Why do you assume humanity must be static... and that change lies outside of God's design/direction/guidance?

[GreecePwns]

I don't assume that humanity is static. I assume that if a god exists (we don't know this so I assume it may or may not) they do not interfere in the natural world (because there is no proof of this).

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=174516&start=210#p3840650

[PLAYER57832]

I don't assume that humanity is static. I assume that if a god exists (we don't know this so I assume it may or may not) they do not interfere in the natural world (because there is no proof of this).

How you do know God is not interfering? Just because you cannot prove it, does not make it so.

[GreecePwns]

Are we going to have this discussion again? Go read the post I linked to.

You're arguing that things that happen naturally according to laws explained by formulas and/or algorithms are somehow interfered with, yet perform as they would be expected to according to said formulas and/or algorithms.

That's not interference. Interference implies breaking these laws. If we can explain it naturally, there was no supernatural involvement in the event (creating the universe and watching it go is not the same).

[PLAYER57832]

Are we going to have this discussion again? Go read the post I linked to.

You're arguing that things that happen naturally according to laws explained by formulas and/or algorithms are somehow interfered with, yet perform as they would be expected to according to said formulas and/or algorithms.

That's not interference. Interference implies breaking these laws. If we can explain it naturally, there was no supernatural involvement in the event (creating the universe and watching it go is not the same).

Your argument was wrong the first few times you suggested it, that has not changed.
Again, you are setting up your own, personal requirements. If God set up the entire system, he has absolutely no need to, as you claim is necessary break out of it.

Further, you cannot prove that the system is always, in every case followed, either.