Thats a good point. I'm probably one of the most skeptical people on here in terms of god/creator but after some of the books I've read and Biology classes I've taken and the wife, who was a Bio major at Cornell, I really find it hard to believe that all of this is just an accident. As Molekule stated, they still can't explain the origin of the cell and many other things. It seems every day a new discovery is pushing back theories and changing theories on the age of the universe and mankind itself. Science is great but there is no doubt it has its limitations, especially here on Earth.
NASA-Mars Rover and Life
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
I'll go along with that. But remember: those who don't believe in an Intelligent Designer believe pond water, the so-called pri-mordial 'soup' became tomatoes and whales and horses and alligators, all on its own. WOW!!! Talk about a miracle!
Also, despite the inability of those who practice Evolutionism to create life...I'll make it even easier for them. We've got huge breeding facilities, can you make a squirrel turn into a dolphin? Even easier, turn a chicken into an eagle.
Believe what you want, it's a free country. But if you believe that hamsters over a really long time, gradually bred and evolved into elephants, then my friend, you have a religious belief.
And I take you to be an atheist who believes in false science, and relies on a miracle to prove evolutionary scientific theory.
Which one of us is religious?
I really don't see why there being a GOD (which I do believe in) precludes the possibility of evolution, or life on other worlds. It's pretty obvious that this world and all it's life was not created in 6 or 7 days. Things do appear to evolve, though we don't understand all the mechanics of it, but so what? To me, I don't have a problem at all reconciling science and religion. Some things can be explained by science, some require faith. We shouldn't be so caught up in one that we discount the other.
As for life on other worlds, why not? There are a lot of them out there, why should our little place be unique?
Mola, about evidence of water on Mars, I'm not sure, haven't been doing much reading about Mars lately, but aren't there ice caps at the poles?
And, sometimes effects of erosion and weathering by water are hard to distinguish from the effects of wind or mass wasting, especially from a distance. More research required.
As for life on other worlds, why not? There are a lot of them out there, why should our little place be unique?
Mola, about evidence of water on Mars, I'm not sure, haven't been doing much reading about Mars lately, but aren't there ice caps at the poles?
And, sometimes effects of erosion and weathering by water are hard to distinguish from the effects of wind or mass wasting, especially from a distance. More research required.
Believe what you want, sure, but also look at things.quote:
Originally posted by DonCT:
I'll go along with that. But remember: those who don't believe in an Intelligent Designer believe pond water, the so-called pri-mordial 'soup' became tomatoes and whales and horses and alligators, all on its own. WOW!!! Talk about a miracle!
Also, despite the inability of those who practice Evolutionism to create life...I'll make it even easier for them. We've got huge breeding facilities, can you make a squirrel turn into a dolphin? Even easier, turn a chicken into an eagle.
Believe what you want, it's a free country. But if you believe that hamsters over a really long time, gradually bred and evolved into elephants, then my friend, you have a religious belief.
You can see from their skeletons that whales and dolphins weren't always marine mammals. You sem to have a mstaken idea. No one claims that one thing evolves into another thing that already exists. Hamsters into elephants? No. They evolve into something new, yet similar. Elephants have not always looked as they do today(what few of them are left). Neither have people.
I don't understand why some think believing in God means you have to close your eyes and mind to possibilities.
Mark.....at last we agree on something.........somewhat.
MolaKule
Staff member
The General Theory of Evolution does say that certain species evolved or "transformed" into other species over long periods of time. This is called, "Macroevolution," which is hotly debated. NO transition fossils have been found to support macroevolution.
The microevolutionary theory says that various species had minor changes as their environment warranted, and that this adaptation was already programmed into the gene pool, but the species were still the same species. This latter theory is accepted by both sides, except for maybe the the details of the "mechanism" of change.
As far as people looking slightly different, they have always looked like people. It is now believed that the Neanderthal people were simply people who had such an age that their features reflected extreme aging. Again, no transition fossils have been found to support the Ape-to-Man theory.
And what skeletal features leads you to believe that Marine animals walked on land or that land animals transformed back into Marine animals?
How is it obvious that life was not created in 6 or 7 days?
Let me ask this question. Why do you preclude the possibility that the Universe was created in six days, yet accept the theory that life evolved over millions of years.
You say that you can acept either explanation, but you preclude a six day creation period? How do you distinguish between which explanation with which to accept or reject?
Are any of you familiar with Stephen Gould's work? He said Evolution is a fact, and is only called a theory bc you can't go into a lab a recreate the process. I firmly believe in Evolution and it all makes perfect sense to me IMO.
READ THIS
When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
Also:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
Also:
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:
A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.
There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.
We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."
In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.
Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.
The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.
- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.
[ July 17, 2004, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
READ THIS
When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
Also:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
Also:
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:
A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.
There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.
We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."
In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.
Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.
The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.
- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.
[ July 17, 2004, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
MolaKule
Staff member
So Buster, what is the TOE, a fact or a theory? Gould seemingly "doublespeaks" his way through the explanations. Gould put forth the theory of "Puntuated Equilibrium" in an attempt to explain away the sudden appearance of fully formed amd mature lifeforms. He was subsequently attack by vehement evolutionists as aiding and abetting the creationists.
A fact is an observable or the result of a physical labaratory experiment, a thing that has actually happened, or is true (undisputable), or reality, truth. A theory can be a mathematical construct of how we think nature behaves, a speculative plan, a conjecture, guess (TOE).
Consider what D. Watson (an evolutionist) said in a Nature article, "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur,....or can be proved, by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
Arthur Keith (another evolutionist) said, "Evolution is unproved and unproveable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
It is unthinkable only because of the materialistic bias against a supernatural causation. I.E., be opened minded, but not open minded to the possibility of other causations.
Accepting a theory because a "supposed" majority believes it to be correct, is an indefensible argument.
Please. Neanderthal people were a different species. Recent DNA testing has not proven that modern people are not carrying Neanderthal genes. They certainly didn't live to be old enough to have completley different skeletal structures.
Look at the flipper bones of whales, dolphins, seals, etc. You will find finger bones. You can also find vestigal hip and leg bones in certain snakes.
The earth is far older than those who suggest a six day creation would say. It existed for millions of years with no animals, no plants, and went through stages of developement to the biosphere of today.
I believe what I see, that's how I decide. Six days, or millions of years?
[ July 17, 2004, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: MarkC ]
"As far as people looking slightly different, they have always looked like people. It is now believed that the Neanderthal people were simply people who had such an age that their features reflected extreme aging. Again, no transition fossils have been found to support the Ape-to-Man theory."
--Homo erectus ring a bell? ( no lewd comments, please). There are also Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, etc.
Didn't look so much like us, but not apes either.
True, no transition fossil has been found, but that doesn't close the argument.
Unless, of course, it was that old devil just planting those fossils everywhere to confuse us...
--Homo erectus ring a bell? ( no lewd comments, please). There are also Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, etc.
Didn't look so much like us, but not apes either.
True, no transition fossil has been found, but that doesn't close the argument.
Unless, of course, it was that old devil just planting those fossils everywhere to confuse us...
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Molakule, I don't even rember anyone during my lifetime ever claiming humans decended from apes. I think that theory went out the window a couple generations ago.
Now, ape-like creatures evolving into seperate species is what I heard, and what I certainly find plausible. It's also backed up by archaeological discoveries and DNA research, as fairly recently presented in a PBS series on human evolution. Not to be mixed up with Bigfoot sightings reported on FOX "News."
There's also the fact that humans and apes, notably bonobo chimpanzees are 98% or so identical, genetically speaking.
Correct, and a common misconception. We all evolved off a common ancestor and are not directly linked to apes. Many ape like creatures of the past died out and weren't selected by nature to survive. It's a web or tree and not a linear linkage as many think it is. A Orangutang's DNA is 99% similar to ours. We share common ancestry, no doubt in my mind.
MolaKule
Staff member
Buster,
So Buster, what is the TOE, a fact or a theory? Still waiting for a scientific answer in your own words.
Moribundman,
The "Ape-to-Man" theory was once the staple of evolutionists, but the phrase is now used to describe macroevolution, a transformation or transmutation of one species to another, the backbone of evolutionary thinking.
MarkC,
And you were there to SEE AND TO verify this all took place millions of years ago? You said you believed what you see!
I believe only what the scientific method can prove. And it hasn't proven what you say it has.
[ July 17, 2004, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
So Buster, what is the TOE, a fact or a theory? Still waiting for a scientific answer in your own words.
Moribundman,
The "Ape-to-Man" theory was once the staple of evolutionists, but the phrase is now used to describe macroevolution, a transformation or transmutation of one species to another, the backbone of evolutionary thinking.
MarkC,
Finger bones, as in fully articulating and same number of bones for picking up forks and spoons? What proof do have these are fingers in whales? And how do know these are "vestigial?"
And you were there to SEE AND TO verify this all took place millions of years ago? You said you believed what you see!
I believe only what the scientific method can prove. And it hasn't proven what you say it has.
[ July 17, 2004, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
Finger bones, as in fully articulating and same number of bones for picking up forks and spoons? What proof do have these are fingers in whales? And how do know these are "vestigial?"
Agreed. It's circular logic. Similarities do NOT prove common ancestry. Fords, BMWs and Toyotas are 99% similar. Four tires, internal combustion engine, seat belts, steering wheel, disc brakes. What ancestral car did they evolve from? The Model T? I think Germans and Japanese would dispute that.
Earlier I referred to Evolutionism as a religious belief. And those of us who choose not to believe it are subject to attacks. Notice the religious fervor with which us non-Evolution believers are attacked and ridiculed.
Finally, I will believe that the General Theory of Evolution does not suggest that species evolve into other, already existing species. Can you point to me one instance where a species became ANYTHING else? I understand VARIETY, that is Lhaso Apsos, German Shepherds and Labradors breeding to become a unique breed. But guess what, they're still dogs.
Also, evolution depends on the theory that by mutation, species become better adapted to their environment. Here's the problem. It doesn't happen. It's never happened. Giraffes are giraffes, even if they live in places where low-lying forage is plentiful. Put a family of them on the Great Plains and guess what. In a million years, they'll still be giraffes.
The way I think of it is, Evolution is an imperfect fact. It's just as likely to be true, if not more so, then the Bible stories. The Garden of Eden, Genesis etc. Evolution is the scientific way of understanding biologies or life's diversity. I truly don't know or have ever heard of ANY Biologist say they didn't believe in Evolution. It's fact as far as I'm concerned but truly an imperfect one.
Buster, your knowledge may be better served in oil threads
[ July 17, 2004, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]
59 Vetteman, this is where I took that idea from.
Mk, your right. I've heard similar mathematical equations posed before and it raises serious questions. It's still technically a theory can be disputed like anything else can. Like that article said, we could philosphise and say we are all dreaming and life itself isn't real.
I guess IMO, Evolution has done a good job of convincing me that it is a process that occurs and has given way to life as we know it. However, it could very well be guided by intelligent design. I"m not an athiest at all. You can believe in both theories. Science and Religion dont have to clash.
And maybe that is the bottom line. Evolution may be false, or Intelligent design may be false.......or they both may be intertwined...........or both theorys could be completely off base. The fact is, that both are impossible by scientific standards. Whether you choose to believe one or the other, or both.......or neither, is up to you. But to stand on one side of the argument, and point your finger at the opposition and shout "FOOL!", is hypocrisy in its purest form.
"Science and Religion dont have to clash."
-----------------------------------------------------
Buster, I feel that way about stem cell research.
-----------------------------------------------------
Buster, I feel that way about stem cell research.
- Status
