0

Since ~s.o.s~ put a well-deserved end to a 1400 post thread (put a stake right through its tiny little heart) - I thought I would see if any one was interested in keeping the topic open.

If you do not think evolution is a valid theory, why.
If you think it is, why.

Do you believe in Creationism and/or Intelligent Design?
Do you believe in evolution?

Please note that I specifically used the words 'think' and 'believe'; please use them carefully - not interchangeably.

26
Contributors
92
Replies
93
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by GrimJack
Featured Replies
  • I believe both -- God created everything, how he did it was through evolution. Read More

  • 2
    Salem 5,138   10 Years Ago

    Evolution is a fact and a theory [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html[/url] Also, the "how life got started" is a completely different question to evolution, which describes what happened after it did start. Finding say DNA (or not) on Mars / Europa in the next decade or two will certainly help in that discussion. … Read More

  • 1

    [QUOTE=sneekula;608702]People were as foolish 5 thousand years ago as they are now. My proof that there is no evolution.[/QUOTE] Not sure who it was, but I heard the notion years ago that evolution of a species stops when that species starts changing its environment to suit itself. Then when that … Read More

  • 1

    [QUOTE=jwenting;612368]VI works on everything, twomers. It's omnipotent.[/QUOTE]Look another chance to use my "editor of the beast' joke VI VI VI. Read More

  • 1
    Salem 5,138   9 Years Ago

    Many different kinds of ways of appearing to win an argument without actually doing so. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies[/url] Read More

1

I believe both -- God created everything, how he did it was through evolution.

Votes + Comments
makes the most sense to me. just don't tell richard dawkins :P
0

evolution/natural selection. It just makes sense

e.g

africa used to a nice jungley place
africa dried up - lots of trees died
lack of food for giraffes (selection pressure applied)
therefore short necked giraffes (common) died, but long neck (through natural variation) survived, as they had a selective advantage
therefore, giraffess with the gene for long necks became dominant.

evolution by natural selection and genetic variation.

0

Africa used to be a jungle gym. Then it dried up and became a dirt road.
That caused animals to become fast runners rather than good climbers, which is why we now have lions and zebras there rather than sloths and treefrogs :)

0

I often debate this to myself, but I guess ultimately we won't know 'til the day we die. Although we may not even know then lol

0

Creationism evolved from people who went to church too much.

which is hardly surprising. Those people created the church which, being created, concluded that creationism is valid.
And that church now teaches creationism to those people, who created that church to be always correct.

0

which is hardly surprising. Those people created the church which, being created, concluded that creationism is valid.
And that church now teaches creationism to those people, who created that church to be always correct.

Darwin created the theory of evolution, which today is still just a theory, but I'll admit that it is a pretty darned good one too. No one will every know which if either is correct because there is no way to trace the evolution of man back to the origins of the earth. Nor can anyone prove the creationist theory.

Its all just speculation.

0

exactly.

A theory however, is not a guess. It is backed up by scientific fact and calculated deductions.

E.g compare the legbones of a whale, a man and a rabbit.

2

Evolution is a fact and a theory
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Also, the "how life got started" is a completely different question to evolution, which describes what happened after it did start. Finding say DNA (or not) on Mars / Europa in the next decade or two will certainly help in that discussion. Look forward to lots of back-peddling and "oh we didn't mean that at all" from the ID crowd.

Creationism is just "magic" invented by simpletons who just can't understand how the world works so they resort to "god-did-it-and-i'll-kill-anyone-who-says-otherwise" rhetoric. Which of course explains absolutely nothing.

The only difference being that people long ago stopped paying any attention to the "god-who-keeps-stuff-on-the-ground' and just accepted the theory of gravity as the explanation for why things do stay on the ground.

> No one will every know which if either is correct
But it isn't (nor ever has been) a 50:50 split. Evolution is like 99% and improving all the time, and the other thing is just a bunch of circular arguments which go nowhere.

People get by just fine on far worse odds than that, but somehow some people demand that if it isn't "100%" then that's the same as zero. Gimme a break.

Votes + Comments
some very good points
So true
0

Since this is a political year and religious folks vote right, I wonder if John McCain believes in the theory of Evolution or the edict of Creationism.

0

I think he used to believe in evolution, but now believes in creationism. Changing your mind is the prerogative of old folks.

0

I think he used to believe in evolution, but now believes in creationism. Changing your mind is the prerogative of old folks.

February 23, 2007 Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was the keynote speaker for the most prominent creationism advocacy group in the country. The Discovery Institute, a religious right think-tank, is well-known for its strong opposition to evolutionary biology and its advocacy for 'intelligent design.' The institute’s main financial backer, savings and loan heir Howard Ahmanson, spent 20 years on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation, 'a theocratic outfit that advocates the replacement of American civil law with biblical law.'

The Discovery Institute is here is Seattle - I should check it out some time, could be good for a laugh.

1

People were as foolish 5 thousand years ago as they are now. My proof that there is no evolution.

Not sure who it was, but I heard the notion years ago that evolution of a species stops when that species starts changing its environment to suit itself.
Then when that species starts caring for its sick, elderly, and infirm and lets them procreate evolution actually starts reversing itself.

We're in that stage now...

Votes + Comments
Heh, welcome to the human gene pool which is now a vast fetid swamp
0

I have my own beliefs, but I do take interest in others'. Essentially this topic I find to be a pursuit of something other than its apparent intended purpose, but that is my opinion. I do enjoy this topic and the comments it receives nonetheless.

I've followed some links previously presented, and choose to offer one of my own.

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.

This choice was intentionally the opposite of what you may probably think, but that is in part because I think a lot of folks have great misconceptions with all parts of what seems a simple question. Much like a great number of questions of forums such as these, the most salient point is not "what's the answer?" but "what's the question?"

0

Not sure who it was, but I heard the notion years ago that evolution of a species stops when that species starts changing its environment to suit itself.
Then when that species starts caring for its sick, elderly, and infirm and lets them procreate evolution actually starts reversing itself.

We're in that stage now...

Well, if you take war into account then all our best and brightest have been killed off every generation. It is always the strong, young men who fight and die thus leaving the weak and ill at home to produce the next generation. This is a more direct weeding out of good qualities (strong healthy) than any altruistic caring for sick and elderly.

I postulate that civilization began with our taking care of weak, sick and elderly (along with cultivation, of course). Also, I would like to point out that evolution does not stop when species begin to modify their environment (nesting is the most common form of changing environment - beavers, ants, birds all change their environments).

0

evolution may not stop completely, but it does slow down dramatically.
Evolution after all is driven by the need to adapt to changing conditions and when a species becomes able to prevent or alleviate such change it no longer needs to change itself.

And yes, maybe civilisation started when we started taking care of our sick and elderly. But civilisation has nothing to do with evolution and for thousands of years those sick and infirm would not procreate.
In fact for most of human history there has been a strong taboo, and in many cases laws, against such procreation.
It wasn't until after WW2 that forced sterilisation of mentally ill people was abandoned in most countries for example.

0

I have my own beliefs, but I do take interest in others'. Essentially this topic I find to be a pursuit of something other than its apparent intended purpose, but that is my opinion. I do enjoy this topic and the comments it receives nonetheless.


This choice was intentionally the opposite of what you may probably think, but that is in part because I think a lot of folks have great misconceptions with all parts of what seems a simple question. Much like a great number of questions of forums such as these, the most salient point is not "what's the answer?" but "what's the question?"

That was a good link - I am still working my way through the abstracts. I just want to point out that since I started this particular thread, I want to assure you that I do not have a hidden agenda other than to stimulate dialog without diatribe. I believe that I learn from these discussions because I try to research my responses and I often have had to change my entire post and admit I was wrong then I discover that to be the case. I would never have thought to look to the Vatican for Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe.

As to your final point - sometimes you have to know most of the answer before you can ask the correct question.

0

evolution may not stop completely, but it does slow down dramatically.
Evolution after all is driven by the need to adapt to changing conditions and when a species becomes able to prevent or alleviate such change it no longer needs to change itself.

And yes, maybe civilisation started when we started taking care of our sick and elderly. But civilisation has nothing to do with evolution and for thousands of years those sick and infirm would not procreate.
In fact for most of human history there has been a strong taboo, and in many cases laws, against such procreation.
It wasn't until after WW2 that forced sterilisation of mentally ill people was abandoned in most countries for example.

Eugenics was a recent and short-lived blip. I am googling now but it is late - if you have some info on this, please link it for me - and I lose so much time when I get sucked into an interesting site like this. I still think that the culling from wars on the healthy, young men would wreak more havoc but then again the winners tended to rape and pillage the vanquished (it is estimated that .05% of all men alive today are descended from Ghenghis Khan).

In other words I am still researching this question.

0

This is an interesting discussion alright. Some of the views here I agree with, some I have to think about, but the funny thing is that it doesn't really matter. If God made the universe he might have done it via evolution or by the ways discussed in the Bible, or they may be one in the same (could people have understood what it was in the OT days?). What's important in that line of thought is that God did it, and no matter the way it was achieved it was an impressive bit of work.

If God didn't create everything then the universe just came to be some time in the past. Unless you're a physicist who is trying to figure out what happened in the first few attoseconds of the universe and feel the need to build a LHC of your own and model it I don't think you should loose sleep.

0

The practice of eugenics is of all ages, it's only the term that's recent (late 1800s I believe, became a bit of a hobby for people in the 1920s and '30s).
Before that it was not "scientifically" executed, but more on an ad-hoc basis by for example banishing or killing people you didn't like to see as parents rather than sterilising them.

0

The practice of eugenics is of all ages, it's only the term that's recent (late 1800s I believe, became a bit of a hobby for people in the 1920s and '30s).
Before that it was not "scientifically" executed, but more on an ad-hoc basis by for example banishing or killing people you didn't like to see as parents rather than sterilising them.

Post a cite please - don't just make bald statements.

0

You can believe that god designed evolution but you can know that evolution is a fact.

"...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."

0

Just read your history (and not the romanticised stuff you get in your local library) or any scientific text on anthropology.
Most "primitive" tribes now and always have cast out the infirm, mentally or physically.
Not only do those people consume resources without contributing any, but their offspring (were they to produce any) would be liable to be weak as well.

0

Well, if you take war into account then all our best and brightest have been killed off every generation. It is always the strong, young men who fight and die thus leaving the weak and ill at home to produce the next generation. This is a more direct weeding out of good qualities (strong healthy) than any altruistic caring for sick and elderly.

I have to disagree with this one. Wars really weed out the weak. Recently wars have been fought by a small percentage of the most healthy people, but I think that's a fairly recent phenomenon. Depends on the war, of course, and the country, but a lot of wars are going to affect everyone, whether they're actually fighting or not. Pretty much anyone who can walk is going to end up fighting if your country starts running out of troops. You didn't necessarily need to be all that healthy and the physicals given in earlier days didn't weed out nearly as many people as they do today. However, you do have pretty strong genes to survive a war given the wretched, disease-ridden trenches in a war like World War I or a war like the Civil War where tons of people died not from gunshots but from disease. If you don't have a good immune system, you aren't going to survive drawn-out trench warfare. Similarly a war is going to take up most all of a country's resources, so civilians who are infirm are much more likely to die off since conditions are much harsher than normal. So it seems to me that the people who survive a big war are going to be a pretty genetically strong group of people, much stronger on average than when the war started. This isn't true in our current war, but I think it is true over time, in general.

0

Germany during WW2 send many of their most educated people to the frontline because the ultra rightwing government in charge in those days did not like well educated people.

0

i dont really get eugenics. is it the same as breeding a species, selecting organisms with traits that we desire and allow only those to breed?

or is it more like crossing one breed with another so that in time a new and better variation of a species come into existence.

If it is the latter than eugenics is idiocity. Because you will never know what recessive dna is hidden and not seen in the organism until it reapears some couple of generations later.

kind of obvious when we consider mendel. even darwin said that it is impossible to create a new species by crossing two existing ones and that was before we know, through genetics, that dna of father and mother stays seperate. except in chiasmata.

point is just. eugenics is really stupid.

interesting enough though one must look at what God did in the bible when he created the nation of israel. some may say that was eugenics. but i am sure it was more like an attempt at breeding. he continuously prevented the descendents of abraham from marrying any but abraham's one people. one reason why essau was so unfavoured. he could not leave the hititi girls alone.

of course i doubt if God really exists. But that whole creation of the israel nation is interesting to say the least.

0

i am not so sure. post war western germany held one of the most educated and intelligent populations of the world. west germany's economy was one of the very best. either you are wrong by saying that they killed their best via war because they did not like them or Grimjack is wrong by saying war kills the best.

also consider how USA imported the best of nazi germany scientists and engineers. guys like werner von braun for example.

if you look at east germany however. and how it lags even to this day then i have to say that war makes not that much of a difference to the genepool.

i think that war can kill such a large section and so much support structure that the best dna just dont get expressed in technology or economy or something or athlethes or whatever. in that regard it is like reaper. it cuts down indiscriminately and although it kills the future inventer of cold fusion it also kills the future idiot who will start world war three.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.