Scratch

Seen on a bumper sticker:
If we evolved for monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

soupoftomato wrote:

I saw some big video on how God accounts for how man was made, how universe was made, etc. Saying from a scientific standpoint you would have to think the Universe cam from nothing and had no reason to become alive or whatever, and that you would have to believe random chance made such an intelligent species.

I agree, I think.

gbear605 wrote:

calebxy wrote:

One of the theories is that there were particles that have always been there (or maybe were the remains of a previous Universe)

Maybe there was some being from a previous universe, that had evolved so much, or different thing were in that universe, maybe it didn't even follow our laws of physics, but this being went outside the realm of space, and when the old universe ended, he created a new/caused evolution to crate us in this universe.  This being we call God.

Thats one idea for the cause of god.

I just believe that god was always there, and he caused the big bang, and caused evolution to happen, and he caused evolution to create us. 

Thats my 3 pence.

Interesting.

There is an awful lot of poorly thought out attacks on science in this thread.  Seriously, guys, a lot of the "evolution can't be true" arguments appear to be based not on understanding of the science but on "I don't understand the science, therefore it must be wrong".

It's all very well to claim this is a scientific argument, but in truth, it boils down to religion every time, and therefore is not a fit subject for discussion.  The ONLY reason people reject evolution as a theory, without even learning enough science to understand it, is because of religion.

Where are the people attacking the theory of gravity, which actually is less understood than evolution?  Nowhere, because the bible says nothing about gravity.

Where are the people attacking the theory of continental drift?  Nowhere. 

Make no mistake, these attacks on evolution are NOT based on a willingness to debate science.  They are purely religious in nature.

****

Lets set something straight, by the way.  There are two things called evolution. 

1) The process.  The simple fact that creatures can change over time.  This, for anybody that doesn't wilfully close their eyes and ears, is a documented, observed, recorded fact.  Animals change in response to environmental factors.  Sufficient change can create a new species that can no longer interbreed with creatures with the same ancestors.  These are simple facts.  I repeat, they have been observed, documented, recorded.  Anyone choosing to deny these facts is being either wilfully ignorant or deliberately lying.

2) The theory.  We *know* that evolution happens.  Sorry, but we do.  The theory addresses *how* it happens.  Like *any* scientific theory, there is no certainty.  We observe, we theorise, we test.  The theory of evolution as first popularised by Darwin has been tested many times since it was first introduced.  It has been refined.  The disovery of DNA filled in the gaps that Darwin couldn't address.  It's still a theory, but not "just" a theory, - a theory is as robust as it gets in science.  Its a theory that has withstood every scientific challenge, been tested, been acted upon, and been USEFUL.  A theory allows the making of predictions, and the theory of evolution has allowed for predictions that led to improvements in medical science.

Is the theory correct?  Testing and observation strongly suggests that it is.  There is certainly no alternative that stands up to any scientific scrutiny.

And there is the rub.  Over 100 years on, nobody has been able to come up with an alternative theory that works, that explains all of the observations.  It's simply not enough to say "I don't believe it", for an attack on evolution to be taken seriously - and lets not be dishonest, this topic has become, pretty much, an attack on evolution - it must also propose a viable, observable, testable, evidentially supported alternative - and that's something that nobody has yet done.

If you don't have sufficient scientific knowledge to come up with a viable, observable, testable, evidentailly supported alternative to the theory of evolution, then I would say that you have no business attacking it in the first place, since I guarantee that in doing so you will be spreading falsehood, either deliberately or due to your own lack of knowledge.

Mayhem wrote:

1) The process.  The simple fact that creatures can change over time.  This, for anybody that doesn't wilfully close their eyes and ears, is a documented, observed, recorded fact.  Animals change in response to environmental factors.  Sufficient change can create a new species that can no longer interbreed with creatures with the same ancestors.  These are simple facts.  I repeat, they have been observed, documented, recorded.  Anyone choosing to deny these facts is being either wilfully ignorant or deliberately lying.

Species changing into different species has "not" been observed and documented. That's supposed to take millions of years, remember? And if you are talking about micro evolution, then thasts just that. "Micro evolution." It proves that it can happen on a small scale.

calebxy wrote:

Mayhem wrote:

1) The process.  The simple fact that creatures can change over time.  This, for anybody that doesn't wilfully close their eyes and ears, is a documented, observed, recorded fact.  Animals change in response to environmental factors.  Sufficient change can create a new species that can no longer interbreed with creatures with the same ancestors.  These are simple facts.  I repeat, they have been observed, documented, recorded.  Anyone choosing to deny these facts is being either wilfully ignorant or deliberately lying.

Species changing into different species has "not" been observed and documented. That's supposed to take millions of years, remember? And if you are talking about micro evolution, then thasts just that. "Micro evolution." It proves that it can happen on a small scale.

Actually, you are wrong.  Speciation has been observed in the labroratory - the trick is to choose a test subject, such as Dropsophilia, that has a very short life-cycle so that you can get several generations of change in a relatively short time.

The facts are there.  If you choose to make statements about subjects that you have not sufficiently researched, then you are arguing from a very weak posisiton.  You have made a statement that is provably factually incorrect, that anyone can check if they care to - it makes the rest of your arguments equally suspect.

Secondly, believing in Micro-evolution but not Macro-evolution is, well, a bit silly.  Its no different from saying that because individual steps are so small, nobody could ever walk 100 miles.  Or because individual numbers only change by tiny amounts when you count, its impossible to count to 1 million.

777w wrote:

calebxy wrote:

GameHutSoftware wrote:

Evolution has been proven.

Lol.

No it hasn't.

Yes it has. There is evidence all over.

Like Lucy?  It's not even a full skelton.  It's mostly wishfull thinking and making up things.

calebxy wrote:

shamrocker wrote:

My veiws on evolution:

Something, maybe God, maybe Ra, maybe even a giant purple turtle, made the universe. We don't know what it is. It made the universe, and all the stuff in it. A minuscule portion of that stuff collided and fused, making a rough draft of Earth. Stuff banged against it, and shaped it, and melted the ice, froze the water, and a lot of other stuff, so we have a livable planet. But it's missing something - heat. And so, we're hurtling around in space, and suddenly, we're caught by the gravitational pull of the Sun. We start rotating around it, at exactly the same distance away as we are now. Single-celled organisms pop up after a while. They grow and grow, until they are the dinosaurs, or whatever was the first living things, not including the single-celled organisms, on earth. and they get hit by something, and die. But remember - all the land on Earth once was one super continent, Pangaea. So if they die out on one continent, well, that's it. Then other sets of single-celled organisms became primates. They evolved into us. Then we evolved more, our brains advancing, our bodies evolving, until here we are! 2011, with cellphones and laptops.


And if your wondering how old I am, I'm 10.

You know, the most common theory is actually that there were lots and lots of rocks and things already orbiting the Sun, and then the earth gradually formed. So, it was already orbiting the Sun when it was formed, instead of forming, and then going into orbit. But still, it's only a theory.

Thermodynamics.  More  complicated things become less compicted things, and Less complicted things become even less complicated, unless  there is direction and order being purposly implemented.

Just curious, why do religious people think that their religion in particular is correct? Because most of their arguments apply for other religions as well.


Edit: Oops, now that really is religious discussion.

Last edited by werdna123 (2011-08-10 08:18:59)

You can post a topic about it, but expect it to be locked because 2 idiots who have different ideas are in the same place.

Paddle2See wrote:

calebxy wrote:

tomicool wrote:

That's like saying "let's make a topic about *insert political party here*". Let's remember, anyone can view it, of any age, any religous views or any political views. Because of this, it's bound to get interupted and ruined.

No, we're discussing science, not religion.

As long as the conversation remains respectful and focused on the science of the theory, we'll leave it open and see how it goes 

...and now we've seen, thanks for reminding me why we have the flamebait clause in the Guidelines.

I'm afraid I'm seeing too many words like "ignorant" and "liar" mixed in here for this to be considered a debate between friends.  I'm also seeing significant departures from the science of the theory into the realm of religion.  Please take your discussion to some other location on the Internet.