Do You Believe in the Theory of Evolution?

[IntruderLS1]

Um...the big bang.

I like how you keep using the word "impossible" when you we don't even understand the universe to answer this question yet. There could be a natural way out there yet unexplained to answer this question.

Yes, I've heard of it. I've studied it. Attended lectures on it. Questioned it. Debated it with scientists about it. It's cool. A lot of it fits the model. No offense Ron, but I feel pretty confident that I know a lot more about it than you do. I've been into astronomy for over 10 years now.

Like I've said a million times before though, it does not explain the creation of matter / energy.

The theory itself has problems of its own, but why go into detail about the little things when the big things aren't answered yet?

When I use the word impossible, I use it in the sense of the physical laws that we own. It cannot be argued that as we understand it, the creation is not possible without outside intervention.

You refuse to accept the idea of that intervention not out of any scientific ideals, you refuse it on ideological grounds. Outside intervention is at this point more probable than natural origin. We have a pretty strong understanding of the natural, and it cannot explain it... as you've said.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Really? Abiogenesists will disagree.

You've been arguing with LiberalVichy too much. She's the only other person I've ever heard talk about abiogenesists on site here. I never got into it with her, but I didn't even know those people were still around. It's a cool idea, and it would have put religion in the hurt locker, but my understanding of it was that it just didn't work.

There's no such thing as a "theory via divine".

That makes no sense what so ever. The creation theory explains everything. It fits all the facts. It is in no danger of being proven incorrect. Just because it's neat and tidy doesn't mean it is impossible.

Please, show me this evidence of god creating things.

This photograph is evidence that matter and energy were created. There is no known natural phenomenon that could account for this creation.

Evidence.

 

[All Else Failed]

Yes, I've heard of it. I've studied it. Attended lectures on it. Questioned it. Debated it with scientists about it. It's cool. A lot of it fits the model. No offense Ron, but I feel pretty confident that I know a lot more about it than you do. I've been into astronomy for over 10 years now.

Like I've said a million times before though, it does not explain the creation of matter / energy.

The theory itself has problems of its own, but why go into detail about the little things when the big things aren't answered yet?

When I use the word impossible, I use it in the sense of the physical laws that we own. It cannot be argued that as we understand it, the creation is not possible without outside intervention.

You refuse to accept the idea of that intervention not out of any scientific ideals, you refuse it on ideological grounds. Outside intervention is at this point more probable than natural origin. We have a pretty strong understanding of the natural, and it cannot explain it... as you've said.

Ok, so what? We'll discover it one day, I am very confident that we will, since I think the human race is capable of many great things. But, I have no clue why us not knowing how every got started is in any way related to evolution. Its not.

You're just saying outside intervention is more probably because of your personal religious beliefs, I believe. I think that a natural cause is just as, and more plausible than a magic man.

it can't explain it, YET. Again, you're just reverting back to the god of the gaps argument. Can't explain it? The magic man done it!

 

[All Else Failed]

You've been arguing with LiberalVichy too much. She's the only other person I've ever heard talk about abiogenesists on site here. I never got into it with her, but I didn't even know those people were still around. It's a cool idea, and it would have put religion in the hurt locker, but my understanding of it was that it just didn't work.



That makes no sense what so ever. The creation theory explains everything. It fits all the facts. It is in no danger of being proven incorrect. Just because it's neat and tidy doesn't mean it is impossible.

This photograph is evidence that matter and energy were created. There is no known natural phenomenon that could account for this creation.

Evidence.

Seeing as how "creationism" isn't even science, no serious scientific theories can come out of it.

lol are you serious with that picture? All that is evidence of it that through cosmical forces a planet formed...and we KNOW how planets form. No god required. I see this is a glaring mark against you...actually. Scientists KNOW how planets form, and there is a specific science around it. Just like we know how all the other planets have been formed in our solar system. Come on Scott that was weak.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Could you tell me what evidence you are talking about?

Also--for clarification--I am talking about the creationist belief of a relatively young earth. Obviously, if you don't believe in that "theory" than we will talk in circles. Perhaps you could explain your "theory?"

The evidence I'm talking about is the existence of matter / energy. There is no competing theory on the origins, so I don't see the problem. Do you have a theory of your own?

As far as my personal theory, I touched on it a few posts up. I don't get too tangled up in them though, because I understand that they are all conjecture. It's just fun stuff to think about IMO, and has no relevance to how I live my life.

 

[All Else Failed]

let me ask you a question, scott. You say that the big bang, a lot of things in evolution and so on are "impossible". Don't you think if they were really "impossible" then scientists would absolutely discredit and abandon their theories? Are they playing a nasty trick on us, Scott?

 

[IntruderLS1]

lol are you serious with that picture? All that is evidence of it that through cosmical forces a planet formed...and we KNOW how planets form. No god required. I see this is a glaring mark against you...actually. Scientists KNOW how planets form, and there is a specific science around it. Just like we know how all the other planets have been formed in our solar system. Come on Scott that was weak.

It's only weak because you didn't read my caption.

 

[All Else Failed]

The evidence I'm talking about is the existence of matter / energy. There is no competing theory on the origins, so I don't see the problem. Do you have a theory of your own?

As far as my personal theory, I touched on it a few posts up. I don't get too tangled up in them though, because I understand that they are all conjecture. It's just fun stuff to think about IMO, and has no relevance to how I live my life.

Thats not evidence of anything besides the fact that energy/matter exists.

It's only weak because you didn't read my caption.

I did read your caption. It made me laugh.

 

[All Else Failed]

All in all, creationist arguments can be summed up to this statement: "we don't exactly know how its done, so god did it."

Thats what all creationist viewpoints boil down to.

 

[IntruderLS1]

I did read your caption. It made me laugh.

You read my caption and you thought I was talking about planet formation? :confused

 

[All Else Failed]

You read my caption and you thought I was talking about planet formation? :confused

"This photograph is evidence that matter and energy were created. There is no known natural phenomenon that could account for this creation."

You used a plenet as a means of evidence towards your own idea, then you said : "There is no known natural phenomenon that could account for this creation." Meaning the only rational explanation of explaining how the planet got there was god. This is false, seeing as how we know how that energy and matter are formed into planets.

If you means matter in general you could have just posted an atom..

 

[All Else Failed]

Anyways, your logic is still flawed. "Just how it works isn't known yet, so lets resort of god" is always your argument. To me that is a damaging attitude to scientific progression.

 

[IntruderLS1]

"This photograph is evidence that matter and energy were created. There is no known natural phenomenon that could account for this creation."

...

If you means matter in general you could have just posted an atom..

"This" refers to "matter and energy." There were a lot of pictures I could have used. Any picture actually. I just think the Earth is nice to look at. :nod:

Is it less weak an argument now?

 

[All Else Failed]

"This" refers to "matter and energy." There were a lot of pictures I could have used. Any picture actually. I just think the Earth is nice to look at. :nod:

Is it less weak an argument now?

Nope. it still refers back to -----> We don't understand it yet, so god done it.

 

[All Else Failed]

Also, answer this:

let me ask you a question, scott. You say that the big bang, a lot of things in evolution and so on are "impossible". Don't you think if they were really "impossible" then scientists would absolutely discredit and abandon their theories? Are they playing a nasty trick on us, Scott?

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Originally Posted by IntruderLS1
?? You lost me. A theory is a belief.

no its not.

Main Entry:
the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2: abstract thought : speculation

3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action.

 

[GraceAbounds]

I could say my theory is that an Alien Race created the universe--there's no evidence for either.

http://www.offtopicz.net/31387-we-re-aliens.html

 

[Minor Axis]

Its a combination--not just random, but there are other reasons that evolution occurs aside from random mutation. Deliberate focus by an organism on survival strategy for example, will result in the organisms best at adapting, surviving.

There is the classic example of the moths that were primarily white becoming primarily black because pollution caused the white ones to stand out more, thereby being more likely eaten. That's an example of a random mutation playing a part (i.e., some moths mutating to a different color (black) that eventually resulted in them surviving.

However, now take a predator such as a lion or tiger. Characteristics that ensure the survival of the species such as strength, endurance, and intelligence are not random mutations--that is over time those characteristics are "selected" by the environment--not random at all. In other words there is a deliberate focus on the characteristics by the organisms.

Basically I agree, however in the second paragraph I'd say that the characteristics are not selected by the environment, but characteristics best suited to the environment. So the biggest, strongest, or maybe fastest will prevail until another change in the environment causes another characteristic to prevail. Hey, maybe the environment is selecting the characteristics.

But there is no evidence for your theory. You could just as easily say Santa Claus created it all. Seriously, its just a belief in a Supreme Being or Force. I could say my theory is that an Alien Race created the universe--there's no evidence for either.

I don't concern my self with the existentialist issue of where it all started because as gillibean pointed out how did God come about? Its the chicken and the egg theory on a grand existentialist stage. I only concern myself with what can be studied and understood at the time--there is plenty of evidence to explain the creation of the he universe, or at least theories based on solid scientific evidence and hypothesis.

My God, I agree with this too! I'm happy to say the anti-evolution crowd is losing the debate! PS- I don't say evolution is 100%, but there is strong evidence versus the "faith crowd" who knows the true nature of existence based only on their hearts and the Bible.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

I could say my theory is that an Alien Race created the universe--there's no evidence for either.

ORLY?

 

[Minor Axis]

ORLY?

So cute! And I need to make a note in my Cool Breeze file...