Do You Believe in the Theory of Evolution?

[IntruderLS1]

No I stand by what I say and that in no way hurts me. People sometimes use the the word "fact" for a theory that has a lot of evidence for it that makes it credible. Evolution is credible.

LOL. I've barked up your "fact" tree often enough to just smile and nod. You may not realize it, but that's one of the many points I've been subtly putting into your head over our past year or so of argumentation.

<evil chuckle>



PS: FWIW, observable = factual. Extrapolation = theoretical.

As nobody has ever figured out a way to observe the beginning, it will remain theoretical. I choose religion because it's plausible. Spontaneous everything to me is turning a blind eye and hoping nobody really asks. :cool

 

[IntruderLS1]

I feel this quote will come back to haunt you. :nod:

You know.....GP, Intruder and those guys. They like to keep these kinds of things in mind.

Then again, you never know. Perhaps they won't see it.

I can't rep you now, but if I could it would have read "You're the best pot-stirrer I've ever met. Subtle. "



Thought you should know. :nod:

 

[All Else Failed]

LOL. I've barked up your "fact" tree often enough to just smile and nod. You may not realize it, but that's one of the many points I've been subtly putting into your head over our past year or so of argumentation.

<evil chuckle>



PS: FWIW, observable = factual. Extrapolation = theoretical.

As nobody has ever figured out a way to observe the beginning, it will remain theoretical. I choose religion because it's plausible. Spontaneous everything to me is turning a blind eye and hoping nobody really asks. :cool

Evolution is plausible, more so than creation stories because we have plenty of evidence. I think you're going out of your way to word terms regarding evolution in a way to slander it. "Spontaneous", "random"....none of these words belong to evolution. Evolution is neither spontaneous or random.

Also, we have observed evolution, read: Understanding Evolution: Misconceptions about evolution and the mechanisms of evolution

Also...evolution has nothing to do with how life BEGAN. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Evolution is plausible, more so than creation stories because we have plenty of evidence. I think you're going out of your way to word terms regarding evolution in a way to slander it. "Spontaneous", "random"....none of these words belong to evolution. Evolution is neither spontaneous or random.

Also, we have observed evolution, read: Understanding Evolution: Misconceptions about evolution and the mechanisms of evolution

Also...evolution has nothing to do with how life BEGAN. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

I know you feel frustration at trying to put a separation between evolution and creation. I promise you, that I do hear you and am not simply choosing to ignore your idea.

The two are simply inseparable in my opinion. If you take the theory of evolution backward in time, it will lead you to a point that cannot happen.

I'm not "slandering" the theory in any way, shape, or form. It is simply disingenuous, again in my opinion, that evolutionists tell us to just believe it started, just because; and AFTER it started, this is how it went.

I would be happy to get into deep scientific discussion with you on the subject again. My job is really simple, as no two scientists agree on any one piece of information.

PS: Have you noticed the line for what constitutes a transitional fossil has moved back a few notches in the past few years? About the same time I started seeing "BCE and CE" vs "BC and AD" now that I think about it.

 

[All Else Failed]

I know you feel frustration at trying to put a separation between evolution and creation. I promise you, that I do hear you and am not simply choosing to ignore your idea.

The two are simply inseparable in my opinion. If you take the theory of evolution backward in time, it will lead you to a point that cannot happen.

I'm not "slandering" the theory in any way, shape, or form. It is simply disingenuous, again in my opinion, that evolutionists tell us to just believe it started, just because; and AFTER it started, this is how it went.

I would be happy to get into deep scientific discussion with you on the subject again. My job is really simple, as no two scientists agree on any one piece of information.

PS: Have you noticed the line for what constitutes a transitional fossil has moved back a few notches in the past few years? About the same time I started seeing "BCE and CE" vs "BC and AD" now that I think about it.

No, thats abiogenesis. Plus, who is to say it cannot happen? Do you personally know every small detail of the cosmos and how it works or generates life? Nope. Do I? Nope. You see god as an explanation, thats ok with me. I on the other hand do not know how everything started, and I am optimistic that one day we will find out, but until that time, lets not bring how all life began into a topic that only deals with traits being handed down from one generation to another.


"It is simply disingenuous, again in my opinion, that evolutionists tell us to just believe it started, just because; and AFTER it started, this is how it went."

Evolutionists can't say how they believed it started because thats not their field. Thats not biology. All evolutionists can say is how life gradually changed over time after whatever caused us to be here. But, we do know how "it went" when life started to evolve on Earth.

transitional fossils are transitional fossils. it doesn't really matter that much on how exactly old they are, although that could be useful to other scientists. Their physical traits are what is important.

 

[gillibean]

AEF, you are extraordinarily patient.

People find transitional fossils all the time. EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil. WE will be transitional fossils. The changes you (general) are looking for, are mostly impossible to see in fossils because they were soft tissue or too minor to be noticeable. When something does become really noticeable it's often considered a new species.

 

[All Else Failed]

AEF, you are extraordinarily patient. Assume I agree with everything you say ( at least when it comes to evolution).

People find transitional fossils all the time. EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil. WE will be transitional fossils. The changes you (general) are looking for, are mostly impossible to see in fossils because they were soft tissue or too minor to be noticeable. When something does become really noticeable it's often considered a new species.

Not all fossils would be transitional, though. You will observe a species that are look the same, yet a lot of them will have varying physical features that can only be explained by a creature changing with its environment over time. Hell, you don't even need fossils to see transition, Darwin's classic bird observations show transition among a single species.

 

[gillibean]

Not all fossils would be transitional, though. You will observe a species that are look the same, yet a lot of them will have varying physical features that can only be explained by a creature changing with its environment over time. Hell, you don't even need fossils to see transition, Darwin's classic bird observations show transition among a single species.

I mean transition in a very macro sense. All humans are in transition from "monkey" to a whole new species. All of us are transitional fossils. Even the species that look the same aren't all exactly the same. There is variation. The variations are the "future" transitions.

 

[All Else Failed]

I mean transition in a very macro sense. All humans are in transition from "monkey" to a whole new species. All of us are transitional fossils. Even the species that look the same aren't all exactly the same. There is variation. The variations are the "future" transitions.

Humans were never monkeys. Monkeys were monkeys, primates that evolved into humans were separate cousins.


Yes, there are variations, but these variations show up in most transitional fossils, so its not like just one animal had a different feature and that was that.

 

[All Else Failed]

Here are some nice vids on transitional fossils:

YouTube - Transitional Fossils I - NEW

YouTube - Transitional Fossils II

 

[Godsloveapples]

Here are some nice vids on transitional fossils:

YouTube - Transitional Fossils I - NEW

In fact, the alleged "transitional forms" between fish and amphibians are not transitional in the sense that they have very small differences, but in the sense that they can be the best candidates for an evolutionary scenario. Huge anatomical differences exist between the fish most likely to be taken as amphibian ancestors and the amphibians taken to be their descendants. Two examples are Eusthenopteron (an extinct fish) and Acanthostega (an extinct amphibian), the two favorite subjects for most of the contemporary evolutionary scenarios regarding tetrapod origins. Robert Carroll, in his Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, makes the following comment about these allegedly related forms:
Eusthenopteron and Acanthostega may be taken as the end points in the transition between fish and amphibians. Of 145 anatomical features that could be compared between these two genera, 91 showed changes associated with adaptation to life on land… This is far more than the number of changes that occurred in any one of the transitions involving the origin of the fifteen major groups of Paleozoic tetrapods.
Harun Yahya - Darwinism Refuted - True Natural History - I

YouTube - Transitional Fossils II

Harun Yahya - Darwinism Refuted - True Natural History - II

http://85.17.145.69/download/14/08/7754222f7a52d5700f4db91a9ed26fb2/collapse_of_darwinism_05.mpg

 

[All Else Failed]

Could you post more videos where they have scientifically illiterate people in them, please? I need a chuckle, I had a bad day.


All of what is contained in those videos is the usual "arguments". I hear them over and over and over, and yet they don't hold any water. PROTIP: Don't goto religious websites for scientific information. 99.9999999999999999999% they have no clue what they are talking about. The guy who wrote that book just wants to cash in on people who are totally uninformed. This evaluation is proven correct since you always post that website and have nothing to say without that stupid site holding your hand.

 

[Godsloveapples]

Could you post more videos where they have scientifically illiterate people in them, please? I need a chuckle, I had a bad day.


All of what is contained in those videos is the usual "arguments". I hear them over and over and over, and yet they don't hold any water. PROTIP: Don't goto religious websites for scientific information. 99.9999999999999999999% they have no clue what they are talking about. The guy who wrote that book just wants to cash in on people who are totally uninformed. This evaluation is proven correct since you always post that website and have nothing to say without that stupid site holding your hand.

Dude.
That website give 100% correct scientific facts. You just don't want to believe it. And I always post from that site because it gives you direct TRUE arguments and I don't have time to write it out for you. If you really opened your mind and actually took in what im giving you, you would know that evolution is nothing but BS. You even said it yourself, a theory needs a lot of evidence, and evolutionsts have like what? a tiny collection of fossils which they claim to be "transitional". It's not that hard, the videos I posted shows you how all those "transitional" fossils are wrong.You're not even reading or watching what I post. Being stubborn can be good, but there should be a limit hon.

 

[skyblue]

Dude.
That website give 100% correct scientific facts. You just don't want to believe it. And I always post from that site because it gives you direct TRUE arguments and I don't have time to write it out for you. If you really opened your mind and actually took in what im giving you, you would know that evolution is nothing but BS. You even said it yourself, a theory needs a lot of evidence, and evolutionsts have like what? a tiny collection of fossils which they claim to be "transitional". It's not that hard, the videos I posted shows you how all those "transitional" fossils are wrong.You're not even reading or watching what I post. Being stubborn can be good, but there should be a limit hon.

evolution is happening right now........take the common eel for example.........in a lake with a high population of small fish thats what they eat,and they have long narrow jaws to account for it......yet the eels in lakes with a low population of fish eat plant life,and the have braod rounded jaws to account for it......thats called evolving to suit your surroundings.......iguanas are the same as well.....even man has evolved to suit his environment

 

[Minor Axis]

evolution is happening right now........take the common eel for example.........in a lake with a high population of small fish thats what they eat,and they have long narrow jaws to account for it......yet the eels in lakes with a low population of fish eat plant life,and the have braod rounded jaws to account for it......thats called evolving to suit your surroundings.......iguanas are the same as well.....even man has evolved to suit his environment

The question becomes did the eels grow long narrow jaws to adapt or did it just happen that the eels with the long narrow jaws were better suited to surviving in that particular lake? I think evolutionists believe it was natural selection and random, but still it's evolution as changes are happening.

 

[Minor Axis]

Mhmm...very interesting, yet inaccurate videos, AEF.

Here's something you should read:
Neanderthals are a modern human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a modern human race. Alan Thorne and Philip Macumber, who discovered the skulls, interpreted them both as Homo sapiens skulls, whereas they actually contained many features reminiscent of Homo erectus . The only reason they were treated as Homo sapiens was the fact that they were calculated to be 10.000 years old. Evolutionist did not wish to accept the fact that Homo erectus , which they considered a "primitive" species and which lived 500.000 years before modern man, was a human race which lived 10.000 years ago. Continued: Harun Yahya - Darwinism Refuted - The Origin of Man

Neanderthals have been proven to be a separate race from Homo Sapiens. So how do the Creationists explain that?

Science Daily link, good reading.

 

[ssl]

a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

First you will note a very important word at the very beginning of the definition: theory.

Secondly, why is it so hard to conceive that evolution *could* have happened? Is it the only thing that happened, probably not. None of us were there, so we are not completely sure, therefore some scientists follow the theory of evolution, and devote their lives to the task of showing how the evidence is in favor of evolution.

Tell them that they are working for some trumped up theory. That will go well.

But then, we should not tell other theorists that the theory they are currently exploring is false either. Science has shown us that even the most brilliant have had errors in their convictions, and we currently test their ideals to see if the theory fits the data.

For example, gravity. What is taught in the schools currently (as of 5 years or so ago) is the Newtonian notion of gravity; whereby the concept is closer to the Einsteinian ideology. However, due to the acceptable percentage of error in Newtonian gravity here on Earth, not much is dedicated to the correction of the education.

But then again, 25 or so years ago, a project was started up between Stanford University and NASA to test Einstein's theory of the space-time continuum by launching a satellite into orbit where they think they have the most probable chance to get good data. I have not checked up on the results, but they think they have detected a lag that proves Einstein's theory.

Of course, in about 75 years or so in the future, someone will publish a theory that trumps Einstein's that will be the cause of exploration for about 2 centuries after that.

Theories are just that, theories. Not laws, not ignorantly followed convincing arguments. Well, they should not be, in any case.

Science is all about gaining knowledge through systematic observations and experiments; by definition, a bunch of tests to check theories.

If I postulated that BB@TW was smart, I would determine possible questions to ask him; to get the best set of data, I would perform the experiment many times. However, I could only test that theory to the extent that I hope BB@TW did not have knowledge about the questions I would have asked him and he go and find out the exact answers before the experiment was conducted. But then, if that happened, how would I know? I was not there, I merely showed up to ask a few questions.

Therefore, in order to determine a better set of observations, I would have to set BB@TW aside, in a confined and remote location, to which has no access to information; such that BB@TW would have to rely on information previously gathered before his isolation. Thereby slightly increasing the chances of obtaining better observations to get better datasets, in order to determine a better conclusion.

But it would still be a theory. Well-based, but still a theory.

 

[gillibean]

Humans were never monkeys. Monkeys were monkeys, primates that evolved into humans were separate cousins.

I know, that's why monkey was in quotes. Monkeys and humans evolved from some primatish animal. It's just easier to put monkey in quotes.

 

[Minor Axis]

Well, we *know* Moses brought the 10 commandment tablets down from the mountain written by God. But does anyone here actually think God transcribed how the Earth was created including Adam and Eve to some eager scribe? Ok who? And what if Joe Schmoe was writing the greatest fiction story every told, how would we know the difference between that and real ancient accurate holy text? Should we rely on info from a neutral church or be suspect of a church with an agenda?

The theory of evolution did not come about because of disbelievers of Christ and God. It came about because of the search for truth and an abundance of evidence pointed at it's strong possibility. The anti-evolutionists have staked all of their opinion based on a single book, the Bible which describes a story about the creation of Earth, deciphered from some ancient text. Ok, what analysis was used to decide this was the real history of Earth with God as the author? There seems to be nothing analytical going on here other than it's a story that many people believe mostly because it makes them feel good about the order of their existence. Every scientific fact regarding the possibility of evolution is summarily dismissed based on faith, faith that all the DNA and fossil evidence is just in our imagination, just like they did on the original Planet of the Apes.

 

[All Else Failed]

Dude.
That website give 100% correct scientific facts. You just don't want to believe it. And I always post from that site because it gives you direct TRUE arguments and I don't have time to write it out for you. If you really opened your mind and actually took in what im giving you, you would know that evolution is nothing but BS. You even said it yourself, a theory needs a lot of evidence, and evolutionsts have like what? a tiny collection of fossils which they claim to be "transitional". It's not that hard, the videos I posted shows you how all those "transitional" fossils are wrong.You're not even reading or watching what I post. Being stubborn can be good, but there should be a limit hon.

No it doesn't. All of those "facts" are just recycled creationist arguments that have been debunked time and time again.

No, evolutionists don't just have fossils. We literally have mountains of evidence. See, this is what I'm talking about. Just by your statements you have no idea what you are even talking about. If you knew anything about this subject, you'd know that every single feild of science sees evolution as the grand unifying theory, and each branch of science has its own way of presenting hard evidence for evolution. You're simply ignoring all of this and sticking to your pseudo-science religious websites, willfully turning a blind eye to countless evidences just because evolution scares you.

You telling me to be open minded it like a nazi telling someone not to be racist.