Evolutionary Debate

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 16:16
VIEWED: 20170
PAGE 5 of 20

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

MILFORD

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:41 PM

AnthonyT, the entire FFF community is just like any other community, meaning that we're all mostly somewhere in the middle on most issues. In terms of evolution, I'm with you, but coming from the other side. I'm a Christian, meaning I certainly believe in the Bible, but not necessarily how it was presented there. I've heard arguments that the creation story is there to teach a lesson more than relate what happened. Either way, I'm with you: there's just some stuff that doesn't make sense on both sides. We'll let the noisy ones rail against each other all day, I say we just sit back and watch it all unfold.

By the way, there's a dynamtie article about a scientist with the same type of questions you have that works with the Human Genome Project in this month's National Geographic. No answers, but interesting discussion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Customizeable handmade baby gifts personalized by my wife! Check them out at www.baby-bobo.com. All proceeds go towards international adoption.

Leaning into the wind that used to carry me-Stavesacre

CITIZEN

Thursday, February 8, 2007 10:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
BY CHARLIETHEBLOODY: but strains of bacteria show evolution, like MRSA which is rampaging through hospitals, methicilin resistant staphylococcus aureus, that has evolved it's resistance to antibiotics.
Everytime you get a cold and don't die from it you build an immunity. I wouldn't go as far as to call that evolution.

That's specious reasoning, at best.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 2:33 AM

Call it whatever reasoning you'd like Cit. Seeing as how I don't buy into any of it myself, I find the entirety of the evolution arguement specious, at best. That is not to say that it's wrong, but no one has ever come close to making a believer out of me on either the Evo issue or the God issue. I'm thinking if I ever do choose to have blind faith in either, I'm going to have to throw my chips in with the big guy up there because being wrong on that decision could mean losing a lot, while being wrong about evolution isn't going to effect me one way or the other.

I'm quite impressed that with everything I said in that post, that this is all you had anything to say about. I must be getting better at this debate thing.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:07 AM

I see the right-wing-nut process of triangulation has worked well on the Amerikanskis. It goes like this:

You start with something very moderate:
evolution is the current leading scientific theory
If your agenda is to change the debate, you hammer on an extreme opposing position:
id is an equally valid scientific proposal
Then the 'moderates' declare that the position in the middle of both 'extremes' is probably right:
Both theories are equally valid, or invalid

----------------------

"Being that there are still a lot of people who don't buy into the whole evolution thing ... " Only in fundamentalist countries like the US and Pakistan. It's non-controversial everywhere else.

As to evolution being a theory that should not be taught in schools b/c it's 'only' a theory - should we not teach about gravity? Electricity? DNA? All of these are mere 'theories'.

BTW, there are penalties to be paid for being scientifically illiterate, personally and socially. Look at Pakistan, where most are taught in madrassas. The unemployment rate is phenomenally high b/c no one literally knows anything modern. So, if the choice is leave out science (with all its 'theories') and lose jobs in the here and now, but potentially gain some eternal something or other, I'd go with keeping the jobs.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:19 AM

Quote:
I'm thinking if I ever do choose to have blind faith in either, I'm going to have to throw my chips in with the big guy up there because being wrong on that decision could mean losing a lot, while being wrong about evolution isn't going to effect me one way or the other.

Jack ?
That's generally known as Pascal's Wager.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

-F

ANTIMASON

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:25 AM

to be fair.. there is some science in Creationism, it just envolves scrutinizing evolutionary theory a little more then most people

a couple objections im aware of

-we have no fossil evidence of any living organisms below the Cambrian layer of earth(or roughly '500 million yrs ago). if you believe that each layer of sediment represents a certain amount of time.. then within the Cambrian period we find a whole range of incredibly complex, fully evolved species, seemingly out of nowhere. i have to wonder what the catalyst was that suddenly facilitated the perfect evolution of millions of species(randomly?). is it not strange that millions/billions of species evolved incredibly rapidly within this time frame, before which there was nothing?

-are the laws of thermodynamics still recognized? the first law states that energy is not created, but changed or transferred- if this is true, wouldnt that mean that energy had to exist before the big bang, witch then transferred it into the visible universe? this also goes for the first living organism on earth or in the universe.. didnt it require some kind of 'life' to proceed it? or is the universe some kind of living creative field(which sounds a little bit like GOd)

-using our own experiences as an example, small changes to an ecosystem have pretty drastic effects, since everything is dependant on eachother to survive and function in harmony. that being said, how did all these species evolve seperately, yet randomly, and still manage to sustain this intricate balance of interdependence?

-supposedly 90-99% of mutations are negative changes, defects or abnormalities, or otherwise. if this is true, why are their no known mutations in the fossil record? by that i mean something that would contribute the to the 'missing link' of mankind

-how is a fossil formed? anything that dies above ground is subject to the elements, and would not likely have withstood the vast periods of time for sediment to cover(and still preserve)it, within a distinct geologic age. what is likely is a species(example) becomes rapidly inundated, such as in a flood or mudslide, with soil, water or debris, which would preserve the animal relatively intact. there is evidence for this, since many fossils, allegedly from different eras, have been found within the same area of ground(google it). this casts a lot of doubts on dating methods, since carbon dating is only accurate up to a few hundred thousand years; without carbon dating, they are reduced to circular reasoning, arguing that the age of the fossil determines the earth, and vice versa

the point in all this being that the earths age is far from being an established immutable truth

i could list a few more arguements of the Creationists, but im sure ill get a barrage of comments on these few alone. it never hurts to hear the other side though..

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:30 AM

If anyone ever offers an arguement that Evolution isn't real go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html They've got more rebuttals of anti-evolution arguements than you are likely to ever need.

I can't really add much to this thread except to say that evolution is one of the most heavily tested theories ever and has weathered everything that has been thrown at it. If you want an excellent explanation get The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, he lays it all out (though as someone else mentioned he is somewhat militant in his atheism). The title of your post indicates that you think there is actual debate, I can't speak for the forum (I've been gone for a while) but as far as nearly every biologist is concerned there is no question regarding the factuality of evolution, just questions as to specifics. That being said evolution neither explains nor tries to explain the origin of life so believing in god does not in any preclude belief in evolution it simply means that literal interpretations of religious texts get a little harder.

ANTIMASON

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:33 AM

a militant atheist? what does that mean? wheres Citizen when you need him?

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:43 AM

"we have no fossil evidence of any living organisms below the Cambrian layer"
Soft, single-celled organisms would not leave fossils except in very specific conditions.

"are the laws of thermodynamics still recognized? ... wouldnt that mean that energy had to exist before the big bang, witch then transferred it into the visible universe?"
Yes.
"this also goes for the first living organism on earth or in the universe"
Not necessarily. If you look at life as another manifestation of energy flow, then its appearance from other types of energy makes sense.

"how did all these species evolve seperately, yet randomly, and still manage to sustain this intricate balance of interdependence?"
They didn't. There were many mass extinctions on earth.

"if (90-99% of mutations are negative) is true, why are their no known mutations in the fossil record?"
Because fossil formation is extremely rare. Of all the billions of dinosaurs that existed over roughly 200 million years, how many fossils are there? Why would you think that a single individual with a random mutation - even if it survived - would be represented in the fossil record?
"by that i mean something that would contribute the to the 'missing link' of mankind"
There are all sorts of missing links, you just don't recognize them.

"how is a fossil formed?"
How do you put hand prints in cement?

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 9, 2007 3:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
to be fair.. there is some science in Creationism, it just envolves scrutinizing evolutionary theory a little more then most people

a couple objections im aware of

-we have no fossil evidence of any living organisms below the Cambrian layer of earth(or roughly '500 million yrs ago). if you believe that each layer of sediment represents a certain amount of time.. then within the Cambrian period we find a whole range of incredibly complex, fully evolved species, seemingly out of nowhere.

The evolution of hard bits that actually fossilize, soft tissues do not fossilize so any creature made up of soft tissues will almost certainly leave no trace.

Quote:
-are the laws of thermodynamics still recognized? the first law states that energy is not created, but changed or transferred- if this is true, wouldnt that mean that energy had to exist before the big bang, witch then transferred it into the visible universe?

Evolution has no bearing on the origin of the universe, nor do evolutionists claim that it does (except for a few crackpots probably)

Quote:
this also goes for the first living organism on earth or in the universe.. didnt it require some kind of 'life' to proceed it? or is the universe some kind of living creative field(which sounds a little bit like GOd)

Evolution never claimed to explain the origin of LIFE, merely the Origin Of Species, it is entirely possible that a creator kicked off the whole show, but evolution took over soon afterwards.

Quote:
-using our own experiences as an example, small changes to an ecosystem have pretty drastic effects, since everything is dependant on eachother to survive and function in harmony. that being said, how did all these species evolve seperately, yet randomly, and still manage to sustain this intricate balance of interdependence?

A timeframe that humans are not equipped to deal with.

Quote:
-supposedly 90-99% of mutations are negative changes, defects or abnormalities, or otherwise. if this is true, why are their no known mutations in the fossil record? by that i mean something that would contribute the to the 'missing link' of mankind

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The fossil record is rife with mutations, indeed a human skeleton from 6000 years ago is noticably different than a modern one.

Quote:
-how is a fossil formed? anything that dies above ground is subject to the elements, and would not likely have withstood the vast periods of time for sediment to cover(and still preserve)it, within a distinct geologic age. what is likely is a species(example) becomes rapidly inundated, such as in a flood or mudslide, with soil, water or debris, which would preserve the animal relatively intact.

peat bogs, tar pits, river deltas. This is why we aren't hip-deep in fossils, fossilization is an exceedingly rare occurence.

Quote:
there is evidence for this, since many fossils, allegedly from different eras, have been found within the same area of ground(google it).

And a competent geologist could probably explain every single one of them, the Earth is not static there are fossils of sea-life in the peaks of the Himalayas beacuse at one point they were at sea level.

Quote:
this casts a lot of doubts on dating methods, since carbon dating is only accurate up to a few hundred thousand years; without carbon dating, they are reduced to circular reasoning, arguing that the age of the fossil determines the earth, and vice versa

No, they are forced to use one of several other dating methods (isochron, for instance)

Quote:
the point in all this being that the earths age is far from being an established immutable truth

Certainly but we know it's older than young earth creationists believe.

Once again, virtually every arguement that creationists can come up with can be answered here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE