Darwin's Theory Of Evolution - A Theory in Crisis... Apparently

[Stone]

Or at least that's what the voices in your head are saying.

Are you kidding me? Is your ego so fragile that if someone says something you don't like you immediately jump into conspiracy mode?

:thumbup repped.

Great.....now he's repping himself

 

[Stone]

I see what you're saying and agree. But it doesn't have to be that way. Evolution is a death blow to fundamentalism. But there's no reason it shouldn't be compatible with organized religion. The Catholic church has officially accepted evolution. The protestant church doesn't do anything officially. But many protestants also accept evolution.

Evolution is a death blow to fundamentalism.

Indeed.
The issue for fundamentalism is denial of reality in order to save faith.
It really isn't a situation that promotes good mental health.

 

[Stone]

That says nothing about the origin of human life. Atheists hijacked evolution and try to claim it says something it doesn't. You just showed your ignorance on the subject.

Atheists hijacked evolution and try to claim it says something it doesn't.

So, let's hear your scientific version of the Theory of Evolution.
While you're at it, explain how you scientifically deny that the process of evolution ( not theory of how it occurs), deny that the process has occurred as represented in the fossil record of the Earths biosphere.

You just showed your ignorance on the subject

So, let's check out your scientific intelligence on the subject.

 

[Stone]

anyone else notice the amount of trolls joining?

I noticed.

 

[Stone]

That's hilarious! But it really isn't as far fetched an idea. If you want to claim being evolved from a tiger it is just as likely as from an ape. Scientists recently completed sequencing the male-specific region of the Y chromosome for the chimpanzee. Expecting to find it similar to that in humans, they were stunned to find differences of 30-50% - not what the evolutionary paradigm would have predicted. If extrapolated back the difference is the same as between humans and chickens. So, lion, tiger or ape pick you favorite animal to have been evolved from and the theory of evolution will find a way to support it.

Man didn't evolve from chimps.
Ape-like hominids, yes.

Plus, I can't find any peer reviewed scientific research articles on the 30-50% claim.
Do you have a link?

 

[Stone]

Many people don't realize the problems evolution has. I think alot of it hasn't really been resolved.

There aren't any 'problems' in the context of the validity of the basic concept, mostly because as a process, evolution is an established fact as represented in the fossil records of the Earth's biosphere......but there have been corrections to the theory as new knowledge has been found and likely more to be found.

 

[Stone]

That is only one problem with it which means there isn't enough scientific evidence to support it. I've posted other problems in this thread.

Non-sense.
There isn't any other scientific explanation for the process of evolution shown in the fossil records other than the existing Theory of Evolution.

The 'poof magic' of creation science and intelligent design isn't derived from any concept of the scientific method. They are completely faith based where the result was pre-decided and bizarre logic used to rationalize it with pseudo-scientific terminology.

 

[Stone]

Nice myth busting.

Also irrelevant

 

[Stone]

It's not that there aren't fossils from every year of life so much as the fossils don't support some aspects of evolution.

Such as?

 

[Stone]

True. Evolution is a theory. If enough of it were proven it wouldn't be.

No....you don't seem to understand that either.
The proof is there to substantiate that the theory has merit, the problem is putting the concept to a scientific test that involves a span of time representative of least the time line involved since first life......over 3 billion years.

The process of evolution ( a sustained phenomenon or one marked by gradual changes through a series of states ) is a fact. The evidence is the fossil record.
Testing the Theory of Evolution is beyond current scientific capabilities because of the vast time needed for an experiment. The Theory of Evolution will likely always remain a Theory in name, but it is a 'working theory' if only for the simple fact that there is no other viable scientific explanation for the process that existed and still continues.

 

[Stone]

I agree with you Honey Bunny. I don't see any reason a person can't believe in both evolution and the bible. I think some people just hate religion and want to create the illusion there is a big conflict between science and religion.

I think some people just hate religion and want to create the illusion there is a big conflict between science and religion.

Agree....but at the same time, there are elements of religions that also want to create an illusion for the purpose of reinforcing their religious beliefs at the expense of others.

Fundamentalist Christians aren't the only ones involved.
There are Islamic fundamentalists that also support a creationist position.
As odd as it might seem, there was a time one of our West Coast fundies, Morris and family of the ICR ( http://www.icr.org/ ) actually had ties with a Turkish Islamic fundamentalist group BAV. ( Science Research Foundation (Bilim Arastirma Vakfi, or BAV) ) http://ncse.com/rncse/19/6/islamic-scientific-creationism

http://whoisharunyahya.wordpress.com/islamic-scientific-creationism-and-its-christian-allies/

The Wikipedia article on 'Yahya'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar

I've long lost the link, but I did at one time find the claim that ICR funded BAV several million dollars in the 1990's to enhance BAV's startup.
ICR certainly seemed to show them the ropes on how to project the concept of creation science.

Imagine that......a bunch of American fundies contributing to a Turkish Islamicist.

Strange people, these creationists.

 

[Stone]

I've seen plenty of debates and they seem to come down to a philosophical discussion rather than scientific. Not enough info on the scientific side so many questions remain unanswered. Many times scientists step outside their field of study and assume the role of philosopher when they don't have a scientific answer. When that happens they lose any authority and I am just as qualified to answer the unanswered questions. That's why I don't have a problem with science or religion. No one has all the answers so it is up to me to sift through what is known and decide for myself what I believe.

Not enough info on the scientific side so many questions remain unanswered.

Such as?

 

[Tim]

 

[Stone]

Penn is a well paid entertainer.
And an asshat, imo.
Right or wrong, quoting him as an authoritative source is elevating opinion to the level of fact.
As educated as he seems, and he passes pretty well......his formal education did stop at the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Clown College ( no joke.... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_middlebrow/2006/02/penn_jillette.html )

 

[Tim]

Penn is a well paid entertainer.
And an asshat, imo.
Right or wrong, quoting him as an authoritative source is elevating opinion to the level of fact.
As educated as he seems, and he passes pretty well......his formal education did stop at the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Clown College ( no joke.... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_middlebrow/2006/02/penn_jillette.html )

What does his profession or education level have anything to do with it?

It was a good point to be contemplated not a scientific paper.

And if you think about it, he has a very good point.

 

[Stone]

What does his profession or education level have anything to do with it?

It was a good point to be contemplated not a scientific paper.

And if you think about it, he has a very good point.

What does his profession or education level have anything to do with it?

If you, Tim, want credibility of your thoughts and ideas, I suggest you post them as such and defend your position.
Copy and pasting a message in an image carries little weight to the subject because you quoted someone that has no qualifications other than being a highly paid media artist.
He has no trained qualifications in religion nor science.
It's all his opinion and you didn't post.....'contemplate this'
You posted it to piss off the fundies......hell, I can do that all on my own and even use qualified sources at the same time. Real scientists, from biology to geology, physics to chemistry.
And I suspect you can, too.

It was a good point to be contemplated not a scientific paper.

It was Penn's comment.
From a buffoon. A well paid buffoon, at that.

Not a serious source :cool
If I think the source is shit, and I obviously support the science involved with studying evolution, what do you think a fundie thinks of the message? It's lost on them....which is why I prefaced my first comment

Right or wrong, quoting him as an authoritative source is elevating opinion to the level of fact.

 

[skyblue]

evolution is fact

 

[Stone]

evolution is fact

Indeed.
There is a distinction between any event and the theory that describes the event.
It's known through evidence that evolution has occurred in the past and that it is an ongoing event.
What we call the Theory of Evolution best explains the event, evolution.
And that has been learned through scientific study.
Darwin gets the recognition for first realizing the basics of the event and expressing it as scientific theory.
Darwin was genius.

 

[Panacea]

I think anyone could tell that picture is opinion and a point to ponder, not fact.

 

[Stone]

I think anyone could tell that picture is opinion and a point to ponder, not fact.

But we're not dealing with rational deniers

Trouble is.....once a crap source is posted and accepted.....in waltzes dr. dino aka Kent Hovind as the fundie expert on evolution and all logic is lost to shit.
BTW....he's still doing time in the Florence Federal Correctional Complex :24: