Do you believe in evolution?

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by ophiura
Why create 3500 species of mosquitoes? Why not one that can inhabit all environments?
Why create 90 + species of deep sea brittlestars in one genus, where the differences are just basically in a few arms spines? Its like He had a quota...and as I also work with a quota, I know the lack of, shall we say "quality" that often comes with that. That is not meant to be a slight, by the way, but it does make me lean toward the evolutionary (theistic) side. With all the potential to just come up with completely wacky stuff that even our tiny human minds can imagine in literature and art? Truly, species level taxonomy brings these sorts of things to light. Even though I thanked God every time I saw some new thing...even studying evolution, yes thank you...it still was a bit of a question.
Why can the mind of someone like Darwin, or frankly...me...not be a gift from God in its own right? Why is it not possible that God is perfectly OK with the expansion of the mind, observing, asking and proposing solutions? Why is that damnable? It seems it is, clearly, at least from certain corners. Could that not be the expansion of the human mind and spirit to its fullest potential?
But it makes no difference in the end. Many of us are so opposed in principle that we never get far in the discussion.
to answer your question about the number of species; In my mind it's to further demonstrate the miracle of creation.
I agree with the rest of your post. Both sides are so entrenched discussions tend to break down.

 

[ophiura]

And to me that diversity represents the miracle of creation - through evolution.
And demonstrates how two with different views can see the same "proof" supporting opposite ideas.

So there is no proof, in my book, either way that would sway the argument when the participants already have their set views.

 

[mike22cha]

I'm positive there have been evolution in nature since the Garden of Eden. Even the Bible proves that. But to say we came from apes or whatever is just silly. Where did they come from? The Big Bang theory?(which isn't even a real theory by scientific defintion)

 

[ophiura]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Hehe, I take it I mispoke in some regard?

I think that people are using the same terms, in different ways, and it is confusing the argument. So as in any language, we should be sure we know what we are meaning when using them in a discussion. So in addition to "proof" and "theory," bringing "laws" into it can confound the discussion. Laws and theories are related but different in scope in science...and totally different than in our daily use of the term. Hence the line "evolution is only a theory" sounding like it is easily discredited and few believe in it. That is an incorrect interpretation.

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
I'm positive there have been evolution in nature since the Garden of Eden. Even the Bible proves that. But to say we came from apes or whatever is just silly. Where did they come from? The Big Bang theory?(which isn't even a real theory by scientific defintion)
i already went down that road . its imposible to prove

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
I'm positive there have been evolution in nature since the Garden of Eden. Even the Bible proves that. But to say we came from apes or whatever is just silly. Where did they come from? The Big Bang theory?(which isn't even a real theory by scientific defintion)
The Big Bang Theory actually gives atheists a tough time. If the size of the Universe were found to be constant (as Einstein wanted to believe), it would be easier to discount a god.

 

[ophiura]

Again, for those worried:
There is NO scientific finding that can preclude the existance of God. Even for the big bang...because we could always ask "why," and always have room for the hand of God in whatever we find. If the Big Bang was caused by the intersection of two parallel universes? Well how did it happen? Why do the other universes exist? Always room for God. People should not fear science. Ever.

 

[mike22cha]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
i already went down that road . its imposible to prove
Impossible to prove? Impossible otherwise, I think. Explain how there were giant people talke about in the Bible?

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
Impossible to prove? Impossible otherwise, I think. Explain how there were giant people talke about in the Bible?
Again, you are trying to argue based on something written in the Bible (which not everyone believes is the true word of God). Why would someone who doesn't believe the Bible have to explain to YOU why it says something, when they believe it's a work of fiction?
Again, that's why I intended to keep this a discussion based on scientific evidence.

 

[mike22cha]

Originally Posted by Darknes
Again, you are trying to argue based on something written in the Bible (which not everyone believes is the true word of God). Why would someone who doesn't believe the Bible have to explain to YOU why it says something, when they believe it's a work of fiction?
Again, that's why I intended to keep this a discussion based on scientific evidence.
Well then you would have to believe the Bible to listen to that argument. And the Bible has been proven too, just most people chose not to believe it.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
Well then you would have to believe the Bible to listen to that argument. And the Bible has been proven too, just most people chose not to believe it.
Saying that the bible has been proven does not make it proven. These absurd arrogant claims do nothing to further to discussion.
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
- John 20:29

 

[darknes]

I've got an interesting question for evolutionists:
Do you think that humans are now "de-evolving", or at least at the end of our evolution? It's no longer suvival of the fittest for us with all the advances in medicine, and our desire to keep everyone alive. Genetic diseases that might have once been factored out have now basically entered into the mainstream DNA.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Darknes
I've got an interesting question for evolutionists:
Do you think that humans are now "de-evolving", or at least at the end of our evolution? It's no longer suvival of the fittest for us with all the advances in medicine, and our desire to keep everyone alive. Genetic diseases that might have once been factored out have now basically entered into the mainstream DNA.
I would not consider myself an 'evolutionist' however I think evolution is still occuring. I hate the term, 'survival of the fittest' I prefer just talking about survival. So to answer your question I believe that due to changes like advances in medicine that we will continue to see changes that reflect our surroundings.

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
So to answer your question I believe that due to changes like advances in medicine that we will continue to see changes that reflect our surroundings.
But now, we change our surroundings to fit us. If we were to colonize another planet, we wouldn't adapt to it's environment. We would recreate our current environment.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by Darknes
I've got an interesting question for evolutionists:
Do you think that humans are now "de-evolving", or at least at the end of our evolution? It's no longer suvival of the fittest for us with all the advances in medicine, and our desire to keep everyone alive. Genetic diseases that might have once been factored out have now basically entered into the mainstream DNA.
Evolution is a continuing process, only the selection forces change. Once, perhaps foot speed was an advantage. Now, it might be darker skin color that would confer resistance to UV irradiation that would be advantageous, or the ability to multi-task in a bar by drinking a beer while looking cool and simultaneously checking out the girls

It is incorrect to think of organisms evolving towards anything. They just change. In a great book, Richard Dawkins emulates Chaucer's Canterbury Tales by telling the trip in reverse so that it is clearer that evolution did not move towards mankind. He argues that giraffes would, just as reasonably, conclude that evolution functioned to make giraffes. Viewed in reverse it is clearer that there is no goal, so nothing can de-evolve. We are what we are, and will be whatever we will be. Don't be fooled by the term "survival of the fittest". There is a tendency to misinterpret that term. "Fittest" refers to a trait that makes an organism more likely to reproduce successfully than its competitor. That is an eternal test, and even with medicine, etc., it still works.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Darknes
But now, we change our surroundings to fit us. If we were to colonize another planet, we wouldn't adapt to it's environment. We would recreate our current environment.
While human's have adapted to be very good at changes the enviroment we still feel the effect of selective pressures. It would seem logical that now due to advances in technology that people who understand that technology would have a competitive edge. Also, there are still plenty of different dieases out there which can be a huge selective pressure.

 

[lazypinoy]

i was watching "before the dinosaurs" on the discovery channel....had some persuading things that promoted evolution. u guys should watch it.pretty cool stuff.

 

[rbaldino]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
The dark ages is irrelevant. As I said, the first and second century church started under the Roman Empire. The bulk fo the NT was written to Romans.
You stated that the Bible was "written by men to control and manipulate an ignorant and superstitious populace". That is incorrect.
You can argue with the validity of the Bible if you wish, but you'll be expected to use facts not opinion and false info.
Then please provide me with factual statistics about what percentage of the population "educated Romans" accounted for at the time.

 

[clown boy]

Wow, I honestly wonder if I should take the time to read through all these new pages...

 

[rbaldino]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Really?
I've done a bit of traveling.I've hiked the rain forests of Australia, dove the GBR, dove the Caribbean, wandered through Mayan ruins in rain forests, traveled through much of America's National Parks.... I never observed evolution. As a enducated Biologist you would think I would have known what to look for.
I've collected a good deal of fossils. My family's ranch used to be a prehistoric ocean. I have many fossils of early sea creatures. They tell me nothing about my aquarium inhabitants.
DNA? We've been discussing that here on this thread.
Lastly, if evolution could be observed as you pointed out it would no longer be a "theory". It would have become a "Law".
Go look at an ape, then look at yourself in the mirror. Notice any similarities? Look at how animals have adapted themselves to their environments, how a Marine Iguana behaves differently than any other iguana because of the environment it lives in, or how certain animals have patterns on their skin/fur to blend into thier surroundings to either avoid predators or improve hunting prowess. These are examples of the circumstances that Darwin observed, leading to the theory of evolution. Did you observe God writing the Bible? Has anyone ever observed God?