Do you believe in evolution?

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
It is also responsible for life.
I think many people get confused when they talk about evolution and use words like 'better' or 'survival of the fittest' evolution does not say that things get better only that they change and the changes that work stay around and the changes that don't work don't stay around.
Is this not improvement???

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I'm saying exactly what you were saying. That people need to research and know the facts for themselves, on both sides of the "aisle" so to speak.
I know there are plenty of people on both sides of this arguement that should learn more about the other side. Generally when I see someone making a bad arguement or claiming something that is untrue I try to call them on it, no matter what side. In the end I am on no side, I have no desire for evolution to be correct or creationism to be incorrect, I only have a desire for knowledge.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
Is this not improvement???
I suppose but I have never gotten a dead guy to talk to me and tell me if death is better...

 

[1journeyman]

As Ophiura stated, this thread is now on thin ice... ANY thread that
"de-evolves" into "The Bible is crap"; "No, you're going to Hell" comments will go the way of the Dodo. Consider this a warning to all folks. As Ophiura stated, this is a forum on the WWW. All folks are invited to participate here.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
Thats what I was saying... No worries, I think I misunderstood your post.
Like I said once, it might have been a cheap shot but I felt after several people took cheap shots at scientists who study evolution that it would be ok to return the favor.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
...I don't see any bashing in my post. When the Bible was written, and later distributed to the masses after the printing press was invented, most people were poorly educated, illiterate, and prone to superstition. Organized religion took advantage of this, i.e. charging people money to get out of purgatory, burning "witches" at the stake, etc.
This post is inaccurate in many ways. Manu of the books of the New Testament, for instance, were written to groups of educated Romans. Also, a study of the first and second century church will show you that the church certainly wasn't taking advantage of anyone. The early church leaders faced significant hardships and persecution.

 

[jerthunter]

You want to know something ironic? When I first saw this poll I thought to myself, 'I want to argue against evolution.' So I made my first statement about believing in change over time in hopes it would start the conversation going. Unfortunately when I checked back later some people on the side I wanted to argue for were making some really bad and inaccurate claims. It's too bad too, because I think it might have been fun trying the argue the creationist side again after so many years.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Sure gene mutations can and do cause blindness. However blindness kind of takes away the competitive edge and therefore it tends to not get passed down much.
Stuff like cystic fibrosis and hemophilia will greatly reduce a person's chance of having offspring and passing on the mutation. I think I have mentioned it before, but just because a mutation is bad for an organism does not prove anything. Things that die, well they die. Things that don't die, well they don't die and have a chance of finding a mate and passing down their genetic information, mutations and all.
You are correct, cystic fibrosis and other genetic defects cut down on offspring; Yet we still see it throughout the world. Why haven't we as a species lost these genetic flaws?
I believe the dominance of negative effects of mutations does in fact prove something. I keep beating this horse because to me it is the achille's heel of the evolutionary theory; The multitude of diseases and defects associated with genetic mutations shows us the incredible improbability of ever achieving entire ecosystems from random genetic mutations.
I appreciate your discussing this in the way you have. It's made me pull out several of my text books and dust them off.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
You are correct, cystic fibrosis and other genetic defects cut down on offspring; Yet we still see it throughout the world. Why haven't we as a species lost these genetic flaws?
I believe the dominance of negative effects of mutations does in fact prove something. I keep beating this horse because to me it is the achille's heel of the evolutionary theory; The multitude of diseases and defects associated with genetic mutations shows us the incredible improbability of ever achieving entire ecosystems from random genetic mutations.
I appreciate your discussing this in the way you have. It's made me pull out several of my text books and dust them off.
Why haven't we seen these flaws lost? Well that in part has to do with with a lot of factors. One being that we have two sets of chromosomes, so it is easy to carry the mutation but still have a functional gene in the opposite set. Second is these mutations continue to occur so there will always be new cases. Another factor would be the evolution is medical technology, now it is much more likely for someone with a genetic disorder such as cystic fibrosis to live long enough to have offspring.
*edit*
Also we are looking at a mere snapshot in time that we are on this earth, even if you only believe the earth is 6000 years old so we cannot expect to see the entire picture from our position in time.

 

[clown boy]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
You want to know something ironic? When I first saw this poll I thought to myself, 'I want to argue against evolution.' So I made my first statement about believing in change over time in hopes it would start the conversation going. Unfortunately when I checked back later some people on the side I wanted to argue for were making some really bad and inaccurate claims. It's too bad too, because I think it might have been fun trying the argue the creationist side again after so many years.
Now would be a good time to start.

Jerhunter, I am far from forgetting my promised facts. I am just so busy at the moment.. but know that I have not forgotten.

 

[clown boy]

1journeyman, do you have Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation by Dennis Peterson? I highly recommend it... it's where I got a lot of the facts that I have posted on here.

 

[socal57che]

I went to work for one day. One day!
At least 3 pages went by!

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I didn't vote because it's not really a fair question. It's too broad.
I saw the question I wanted to see without giving it much thought.

 

[rbaldino]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
That's an interesting point of view... Of course, someone who has a relationship with God might argue that unless you have a relationship with "evolution" you are incorrect.
Belief is God requires faith. Belief in evolution requires faith. Simply saying there is more evidence for one over another is a bit too simplistic for my taste.
Evolution is a theory that can be observed, studied through the fossil record, analyzed with DNA, etc. God's existence can be proven by...? Having a "relationship" with him?

 

[rbaldino]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
This post is inaccurate in many ways. Manu of the books of the New Testament, for instance, were written to groups of educated Romans.
And "educated Romans" made up what percentage of the world's population at the time? And during the Dark Ages, how many people were running around reading books? The fact is, it's only been in the last 200 or so years that a majority of the population has learned to read and write. Before that, many of them were too busy farming or hunting to get a proper education, and they depended on clergymen to recite and interpret the Bible for them.

 

[geridoc]

Belief is God requires faith. Belief in evolution requires faith.
The incorrectness of this statement is exactly at the core of the creationist-evolutionist debate. Belief in God does require faith, and there is nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, few evolutionary biologists "believe in" evolution through faith. They simply find that the theory of evolution, as it currently stands, explains the observed facts better than any other theory. Faith is specifically not involved in this, and evolutionary biologists, like all scientists (place the word "good" before evolutionary and scientists) are pleased to see their theory modified or even overturned, because this brings us closer to the objective truth.

 

[jonfletch01]

I had a nice long post written up.. and decided to deleted..
Why can't people just let one another believe what they want.. Why should one be better than the other.. why must we try to disprove others beliefs...
Whether we die and that's it.. or our spirits/souls go on to live in enternal sunshine/damnation... what does it really matter...
It's whatever helps you get through the day by day trials of life...
Trying to disprove one another is nothing but a waste of time...

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by jonfletch01
I had a nice long post written up.. and decided to deleted..
Why can't people just let one another believe what they want.. Why should one be better than the other.. why must we try to disprove others beliefs...
Whether we die and that's it.. or our spirits/souls go on to live in enternal sunshine/damnation... what does it really matter...
It's whatever helps you get through the day by day trials of life...
Trying to disprove one another is nothing but a waste of time...
If it were only a matter of individual beliefs, then you are right - people should be permitted to believe what they want. However (you knew there had to be a "however"), these belief and approach differences have practical consequences, since individuals with a religious agenda continually attempt to lever their belief systems into science classrooms. Since such beliefs are not science, there is a very real threat of training a generation whose world view is rooted in the first century. Where, then, is there room for modern medicine, much of which is based on modern biological concepts, such as evolution? Where does modern physics fit into such a world view, and its efforts to find alternative energy sources (in the first century the alternative energy source to fire was slavery)? It is a matter not only of philosophy of life and the universe, but of how one acts on those beliefs. So it does matter, and it is worth debating in every venue.

 

[jonfletch01]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
If it were only a matter of individual beliefs, then you are right - people should be permitted to believe what they want. However (you knew there had to be a "however"), these belief and approach differences have practical consequences, since individuals with a religious agenda continually attempt to lever their belief systems into science classrooms. Since such beliefs are not science, there is a very real threat of training a generation whose world view is rooted in the first century. Where, then, is there room for modern medicine, much of which is based on modern biological concepts, such as evolution? Where does modern physics fit into such a world view, and its efforts to find alternative energy sources (in the first century the alternative energy source to fire was slavery)? It is a matter not only of philosophy of life and the universe, but of how one acts on those beliefs. So it does matter, and it is worth debating in every venue.
You missed the entire point... if one believes something then they will follow that belief.. which means advancements in medicine, alternatiive energy, etc... that doesn't mean you should argue with other people and tell them they are wrong.. you can tell someone your belief without disproving theres.. people have the ability to make desicsions for themselfs..
I personally know quit a few doctors that are religious.. do you believe that means they are not looking for better cures.. advancements.. no..
The entire point I was trying to make was not to force beliefs on other people... if people wouldn't do that.. then we wouldn't be wasting time with debating...
and one question.. how was slavery an alternative energy source to fire..? I personally have never heard of a slave producing heat for a house old, cooking food without the aid of fire, or burning any type of structure w/o starting a fire..

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
The incorrectness of this statement is exactly at the core of the creationist-evolutionist debate. Belief in God does require faith, and there is nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, few evolutionary biologists "believe in" evolution through faith. They simply find that the theory of evolution, as it currently stands, explains the observed facts better than any other theory. Faith is specifically not involved in this, and evolutionary biologists, like all scientists (place the word "good" before evolutionary and scientists) are pleased to see their theory modified or even overturned, because this brings us closer to the objective truth.

sorry but this is just false. to believe that we evolved from an ape takes much more faith then to believe we were created by God . theres at least proof of Gods exsistance. ive never seen any evidence that we evolved from an ape just theory