We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Support for evolution (survey stats); Not evidence just survey stats
Topic Started: Aug 10 2007, 07:32 PM (396 Views)
tennisplayer89
Member
[ * ]
OcelotJay
Aug 12 2007, 09:39 PM
Benjamin
Aug 12 2007, 08:14 PM
Only God can create something from nothing.

The Big Bang theory doesn't prescribe to the idea that it occurred out of nowhere. Indeed, empiricism is the backbone of scientific research which is what makes it so difficult to attain the truth to the origins of the universe. Because we're ill-equipped to probe deep enough into the very early universe (the split second prior to the explosion) it's impossible for us to know for sure and thus much of it is speculative, based on observational studies and mathematical theories, however it isn't all plucked out of thin air nor does the theory go down the route that it "just happened". Simply because we don't yet know why doesn't mean evolutionists blindly believe in chance. I for one support evolution but I don't believe in coincidence or chance, nor do I think there is required a grand schemer to put things into motion.
Quote:
 
Therefore, the law of evolution cannot even be debated.

Despite the fact evolution does fit in with much of what makes a scientific law, there is no such thing as the "law of evolution" and it remains a theory. Modern evolution is actually an amalgamation of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Gregor Mendel's tenets of genetic inheritance known as the modern evolutionary synthesis. It's a pillar of biology that brings together the threads of genetics, biology, botany, morphology, etc. that were previously absent and caused Darwin's theory to be heavily challenged, and while it is widely accepted it isn't without its problems. But that's the nature of science: continuous research to reinforce existing theories and laws or to generate new ones as necessary with evidence to the contrary.

It depends how you view evolution though. Not everyone is quite up to date on the theory and so many believe that evolution is held to be a constant and slow development, which is contrary to both fossil records and the synthesis.

Quote:
 
Benjamin
Aug 12 2007, 08:14 PM
Only God can create something from nothing.

The Big Bang theory doesn't prescribe to the idea that it occurred out of nowhere. Indeed, empiricism is the backbone of scientific research which is what makes it so difficult to attain the truth to the origins of the universe. Because we're ill-equipped to probe deep enough into the very early universe (the split second prior to the explosion) it's impossible for us to know for sure and thus much of it is speculative, based on observational studies and mathematical theories, however it isn't all plucked out of thin air nor does the theory go down the route that it "just happened". Simply because we don't yet know why doesn't mean evolutionists blindly believe in chance. I for one support evolution but I don't believe in coincidence or chance, nor do I think there is required a grand schemer to put things into motion.
Quote:
 
Therefore, the law of evolution cannot even be debated.

Despite the fact evolution does fit in with much of what makes a scientific law, there is no such thing as the "law of evolution" and it remains a theory. Modern evolution is actually an amalgamation of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Gregor Mendel's tenets of genetic inheritance known as the modern evolutionary synthesis. It's a pillar of biology that brings together the threads of genetics, biology, botany, morphology, etc. that were previously absent and caused Darwin's theory to be heavily challenged, and while it is widely accepted it isn't without its problems. But that's the nature of science: continuous research to reinforce existing theories and laws or to generate new ones as necessary with evidence to the contrary.

It depends how you view evolution though. Not everyone is quite up to date on the theory and so many believe that evolution is held to be a constant and slow development, which is contrary to both fossil records and the synthesis.


Exactly what I was going for.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pud
Member Avatar
I wish I had something useful to put in this Member Title...
[ *  *  *  * ]
I'm going to keep neutral (in this post anyway).

But to be quite honest, the stature of the people supporting it doesn't make it any less bull.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andrew
Member Avatar
I'm Not There
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Pud
Aug 20 2007, 01:57 PM
I'm going to keep neutral (in this post anyway).

But to be quite honest, the stature of the people supporting it doesn't make it any less bull.

Please explain how evolution is "bull".

...and how was that in any way a neutral post when you call evolution bull? :huh:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pud
Member Avatar
I wish I had something useful to put in this Member Title...
[ *  *  *  * ]
Andrew
Aug 20 2007, 02:03 PM
Pud
Aug 20 2007, 01:57 PM
I'm going to keep neutral (in this post anyway).

But to be quite honest, the stature of the people supporting it doesn't make it any less bull.

Please explain how evolution is "bull".

...and how was that in any way a neutral post when you call evolution bull? :huh:

Any less... I know what I mean.

would you really like me to explain... It would take me ages, and I'm at work... I'll post one when I get home.

EDIT: DEVIL POSSSST
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Benjamin
Member Avatar

[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't see how evolution can't be possible. It's very simple. A new born has a mutation that might help it survive easilier than it's parents, and others of the same species without the mutation. While the ones without the mutation die off faster or earlier, the mutated one reproduces more of the same species with the same mutation. It makes sense. It's how animals adapt to their surroundings. I don't see how someone can't believe that this happens and also believe that God created the universe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pud
Member Avatar
I wish I had something useful to put in this Member Title...
[ *  *  *  * ]
Benjamin
Aug 20 2007, 03:10 PM
I don't see how evolution can't be possible. It's very simple. A new born has a mutation that might help it survive easilier than it's parents, and others of the same species without the mutation. While the ones without the mutation die off faster or earlier, the mutated one reproduces more of the same species with the same mutation. It makes sense. It's how animals adapt to their surroundings. I don't see how someone can't believe that this happens and also believe that God created the universe.

See now that's where people get confused.

What you are talking about is natural selection, evolution theory tries to define the coming of life on earth, and that part of the "theory" of evolution is about as robust as my signature.

EDIT:

the point is that they are different things...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Benjamin
Member Avatar

[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Pud
Aug 20 2007, 10:14 AM
Benjamin
Aug 20 2007, 03:10 PM
I don't see how evolution can't be possible. It's very simple. A new born has a mutation that might help it survive easilier than it's parents, and others of the same species without the mutation. While the ones without the mutation die off faster or earlier, the mutated one reproduces more of the same species with the same mutation. It makes sense. It's how animals adapt to their surroundings. I don't see how someone can't believe that this happens and also believe that God created the universe.

See now that's where people get confused.

What you are talking about is natural selection, evolution theory tries to define the coming of life on earth, and that part of the "theory" of evolution is about as robust as my signature.

EDIT:

the point is that they are different things...

When I think of evolution, I think of one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal. Couldn't God have used evolution and natural selection as a means to bring about life?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pud
Member Avatar
I wish I had something useful to put in this Member Title...
[ *  *  *  * ]
but when I say the theory of evolution is bull, I mean the theory of evolution, not natural selection.

I'm gonna write something about this when I get home I promise =/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andrew
Member Avatar
I'm Not There
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Pud
Aug 20 2007, 04:25 PM
but when I say the theory of evolution is bull, I mean the theory of evolution, not natural selection.

Natural selection IS a part of the theory of evolution. ^o)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pud
Member Avatar
I wish I had something useful to put in this Member Title...
[ *  *  *  * ]
I know, but the creation part of that theory...

read my other topic labeled 'a point about Christianity' on this forum...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paleognath
Napoleon '08
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pud
Aug 20 2007, 02:14 PM
Benjamin
Aug 20 2007, 03:10 PM
I don't see how evolution can't be possible. It's very simple. A new born has a mutation that might help it survive easilier than it's parents, and others of the same species without the mutation. While the ones without the mutation die off faster or earlier, the mutated one reproduces more of the same species with the same mutation. It makes sense. It's how animals adapt to their surroundings. I don't see how someone can't believe that this happens and also believe that God created the universe.

See now that's where people get confused.

What you are talking about is natural selection, evolution theory tries to define the coming of life on earth, and that part of the "theory" of evolution is about as robust as my signature.

EDIT:

the point is that they are different things...

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That is the Primordial soup theory. Evolutionary theory explains how life came to being so diverse not how it came to be. And I am right about that.

Me personally believe in evolution but when I think of Primordial soup theory I disagree. I believe in the theory that our life originated on Mars. And that is a scientific theory based on the remains of ancient archaeobacteria found in Martian soil. OF course I am not always sure about that theory either but all I know is that there was both life on Mars and Earth at some point.



Also Andrew is right. Please get your facts straight Pud.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paleognath
Napoleon '08
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pud
Aug 20 2007, 11:57 AM
I'm going to keep neutral (in this post anyway).

But to be quite honest, the stature of the people supporting it doesn't make it any less bull.

Ok I clearly stated in the topic description that this has nothing to do whether or not it is true it simply is showing the sort of support it has. If you want to discuss which is right or wrong please go to another topic that actually has to do with it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2