CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection.
When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.
Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.
First of all I don't see how anyone can say its a fact because even evolutionists say it is a theory since it hasn't been proven. Second, as the guy before me said you have to make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro evolution can be called a fact because it has been observed in actual experiments. However this doesn't mean that macro-evolution is a fact. It would make perfect sense for a creator to design life so that it can adapt to its environment and not die off at the first sign of change.
Since the burden of proof is on those people that say it is a fact or even a good theory please provide me with evidence. What do you have?
I will go over some of the "proofs" that are often brought up:
1. Many species share a lot of genetic code and have similar body plans. This seems like it would support evolution but really cars are designed and we use the same basic design for all cars so this piece of evidence supports both intelligent design and evolution. There is no reason why a creator wouldn't use the same design multiple times.
2. We have observed development of immunity in bacteria and viruses. This is actually micro evolution. It's not like a new species of bacteria arose. Scientists have actually grown large cultures of bacteria and viruses in labs trying to get them to evolve new traits (new protein protein interactions) but all they got are minor changes and often these changes make the organism worse (loss of an ability or other for the sake of short term gain). We have never observed examples of macroevolution in a lab even with viruses that have a huge mutation rate and population. Read about his in the "Edge of Evolution" by Behe.
3. A sidenote: There are calculations that have been done by scientists (including in the book by Behe) where it is shown that it is extremely improbable for life to arise from non life but also for species to evolve into others. Actual evolutionist scientists are looking for new ways to explain these improbabilities by abandoing the idea that life arose by pure chance. They are coming up with new theories that suggest ideas such as that amino acids have a certain attraction that makes them want to arrange themselves in a certain order etc.
4. Transitional Fossils: Few of these have been found and often not even evolutionists agree on the evolution of that transitional form and its environment. I watched a lot of documentaries about these and have observed that really we can't know very much about that long ago and there are constantly new theories and stories that are invented to explain these fossils. They almost never even find a large part of the skeleton of that animal. They find a tiny bit and infer the rest using various suspicious methods. Also evolutionary theory fails to explain how instead of a tree of species you get a grass field during the Cambrian explosion where in a relatively short period of time tons of new body plans arise.
What everyday people need to understand is that the evolutionary theory is very incomplete and has many many serious problems. The only reasons it is accepted is because it is the only theory other than intelligent design that explains life and a lot of scientists simply don't want to accept a creator no matter what.
First of all I don't see how anyone can say its a fact because even evolutionists say it is a theory since it hasn't been proven.
The fact that objects fall when you drop them is part of gravitational theory. The fact that the earth moves around the sun is heliocentric theory. The fact that allele frequencies vary by generation is a part of evolutionary theory. Before you speak dismissively of theories, learn what theory means in a scientific context, and why no theory, even one that is infinitely evidence, can be proven.
Second, as the guy before me said you have to make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro evolution can be called a fact because it has been observed in actual experiments. However this doesn't mean that macro-evolution is a fact.
Macro-evolution is simply the accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes over a vast length of time.
1. Many species share a lot of genetic code and have similar body plans. This seems like it would support evolution but really cars are designed and we use the same basic design for all cars so this piece of evidence supports both intelligent design and evolution. There is no reason why a creator wouldn't use the same design multiple times.
So, in other words, it might look like evidence for evolution...but God could have done it!
If something cannot be tested scientifically, it is not part of science. Saying 'God did it' in response to everything is untestable and it has no place in a scientific debate.
2. We have observed development of immunity in bacteria and viruses. This is actually micro evolution. It's not like a new species of bacteria arose. Scientists have actually grown large cultures of bacteria and viruses in labs trying to get them to evolve new traits (new protein protein interactions) but all they got are minor changes and often these changes make the organism worse (loss of an ability or other for the sake of short term gain). We have never observed examples of macroevolution in a lab even with viruses that have a huge mutation rate and population. Read about his in the "Edge of Evolution" by Behe.
1. This and this take care of your claim that speciation has never been observed.
2. Speciation takes a massive amount of time and it is no surprise it has rarely (not never) been observed. I have confidence that, as we go, we will continue to well-documented examples of macroevolution.
3. Surprise surprise, the poster boy of intelligent design and pioneer of the annoying irreducible complexity argument. I'll pass on the book for now, but in the meantime, here's a deconstruction of the irreducible complexity argument. I'd be happy to address any other specific claims you'd like to cite from his book.
3. A sidenote: There are calculations that have been done by scientists (including in the book by Behe) where it is shown that it is extremely improbable for life to arise from non life but also for species to evolve into others. Actual evolutionist scientists are looking for new ways to explain these improbabilities by abandoing the idea that life arose by pure chance. They are coming up with new theories that suggest ideas such as that amino acids have a certain attraction that makes them want to arrange themselves in a certain order etc.
The origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory nor does evolutionary theory claim that evolution is purely a result of chance. While your arguments are more complete and complex than some of the other sorry examples in this thread, it seems you still have, at best, a tenuous grasp of what evolution actually posits. Either that or you are constructing a deliberate strawman.
Furthermore, improbability does not equal impossibility. In fact, given the huge amount of time encompassed in the history of life, there is an element of inevitability to even the smallest of chances: given the billions of organisms that have lived on earth in the billions of years since life began, it would be absurd to assume that some of them participated in incredibly unlikely and significant events. The fact that you are alive is an amazingly improbable, even if you only consider the minute chance of the particular sperm that carried half your DNA being the one to successfully fuse with the egg that carried the other half. And yet, here you are, arguing a theory you do not understand.
I somehow missed the rest of your post. My mistake. I would also like to amend a typing error:
"..it would be absurd to assume that some of them participated in incredibly unlikely and significant events..." should be: "it would be absurd to assume that none of them participated in incredibly unlikely and significant events."
4. Transitional Fossils: Few of these have been found and often not even evolutionists agree on the evolution of that transitional form and its environment. I watched a lot of documentaries about these and have observed that really we can't know very much about that long ago and there are constantly new theories and stories that are invented to explain these fossils. They almost never even find a large part of the skeleton of that animal. They find a tiny bit and infer the rest using various suspicious methods. Also evolutionary theory fails to explain how instead of a tree of species you get a grass field during the Cambrian explosion where in a relatively short period of time tons of new body plans arise.
Not sure who told you 'few' transitional fossils exist, what 'few' means to you, and how you can still deny evolution even in the face of the existence of a 'few' transitional fossils.
Yes, scientists disagree about the finer points of evolution, such as who descended from who and when. This is in no way evidence against evolution itself.
Please elaborate on these 'suspicious' methods of inference.
If you had actually searched for an explanation of the 'Cambrian explosion' you would have found that, although there not really a consensus yet, we are well aware of several factors that probably contributed to a dearth of precambrian fossils. Precambrian life was mostly lacking in 'hard parts' like shells and exoskeletons, and soft tissue does not fossilize well. Additionally, until the Cambrian era, it is quite possible than the cold, low-oxygen environment hindered evolution.
On a side note, even if these theories are insufficient to you, or even if they turn out to be incorrect, I am baffled as to how you can be aware of the Cambrian explosion and not see it as evidence for evolution.
What everyday people need to understand is that the evolutionary theory is very incomplete and has many many serious problems. The only reasons it is accepted is because it is the only theory other than intelligent design that explains life and a lot of scientists simply don't want to accept a creator no matter what.
Yes, we do not have all the pieces of the puzzle and we should still be asking questions, but as for evolution being accepted solely on the basis that scientists personally prefer it to creationism? Ridiculous. Evolution only adds more evidence to its enormous library every day. Creationism, despite the desperate attempts of its proponents, has nothing that can stand on one leg in the face of real scientific inquiry. At best, they can point out gaps and uncertainties in the historical record, and try to make it seem like these somehow disprove evolution as a process.
The fact that objects fall when you drop them is part of gravitational theory. The fact that the earth moves around the sun is heliocentric theory. The fact that allele frequencies vary by generation is a part of evolutionary theory. Before you speak dismissively of theories, learn what theory means in a scientific context, and why no theory, even one that is infinitely evidence, can be proven.
The topic of this debate is whether evolution is fact or theory and it is generally accepted by scientists that it is a theory. It really doest matter if it is a generally accepted theory it is still a theory and therefore the topic of this debate is pretty stupid. The rest of my post isn't proving it is a theory it is proving that it is a bad theory.
Macro-evolution is simply the accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes over a vast length of time.
Nope. just cause i can jump 2 feet doesn't mean I can fly. There is a lot more complexity in Macroevolution which gives rise to different problems and limitations. Why do you think evolutionary biologists separated the theory into microevolution and macroevolution in the first place.
So, in other words, it might look like evidence for evolution...but God could have done it!
If something cannot be tested scientifically, it is not part of science. Saying 'God did it' in response to everything is untestable and it has no place in a scientific debate.
First of all noone said God it might have been a designer in our own universe who isn't all powerful. When you have 2 possible theories to explain the facts and the facts support both, the facts aren't evidence for either. Please cite where you got your definition of what science is and what testing is becasue there are multiple opinions. Also you can't completely test evolution either otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate.
1. This and this take care of your claim that speciation has never been observed.
2. Speciation takes a massive amount of time and it is no surprise it has rarely (not never) been observed. I have confidence that, as we go, we will continue to well-documented examples of macroevolution.
3. Surprise surprise, the poster boy of intelligent design and pioneer of the annoying irreducible complexity argument. I'll pass on the book for now, but in the meantime, here's a deconstruction of the irreducible complexity argument. I'd be happy to address any other specific claims you'd like to cite from his book.
1.Not really. The wikipedia article has some of the same examples as the other one and seems to mostly just describe how they think speciation happens. The first article gives very suspicious example of speciation. Scientists cant get viruses or bacteria to speciate in labs and they are describing much more complex organisms that mutate slowly and supposedly speciate. None of those examples of speciation have actually been observed in labs. Just cause you find a new specie that is similar to another one and hasn't been observed before doesn't mean it speciated.
2.Well no offense but scientists have been confident and wrong before.
3.I will address this point after I have finished the article which takes a long time to get to the point.
The origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory nor does evolutionary theory claim that evolution is purely a result of chance. While your arguments are more complete and complex than some of the other sorry examples in this thread, it seems you still have, at best, a tenuous grasp of what evolution actually posits. Either that or you are constructing a deliberate strawman.
Furthermore, improbability does not equal impossibility. In fact, given the huge amount of time encompassed in the history of life, there is an element of inevitability to even the smallest of chances: given the billions of organisms that have lived on earth in the billions of years since life began, it would be absurd to assume that some of them participated in incredibly unlikely and significant events. The fact that you are alive is an amazingly improbable, even if you only consider the minute chance of the particular sperm that carried half your DNA being the one to successfully fuse with the egg that carried the other half. And yet, here you are, arguing a theory you do not understand.
Then if your theory doesn't explain the origin of life isn't it incomplete? I was under the impression that evolutionists have been trying to explain the origin of life by random chance for a while. I mean look at the miller experiments(which are flawed by the way).
You misunderstand. I am not talking about improbabilities at the scale of your sperm example. I am talking about improbabilities at the scale that approach impossibilities. At the scale where you have to invent parallel universes just to explain life.
The topic of this debate is whether evolution is fact or theory and it is generally accepted by scientists that it is a theory. It really doest matter if it is a generally accepted theory it is still a theory and therefore the topic of this debate is pretty stupid. The rest of my post isn't proving it is a theory it is proving that it is a bad theory.
It's a theory and a fact. That is what I was illustrating by comparing it to other theories that are also facts.
Nope. just cause i can jump 2 feet doesn't mean I can fly. There is a lot more complexity in Macroevolution which gives rise to different problems and limitations. Why do you think evolutionary biologists separated the theory into microevolution and macroevolution in the first place.
Macroevolution is indeed a more complicated process and it is the one that needs the most exploration. Nevertheless, accumulated microevolution is how it occurs; isolated populations of the same species accumulate different microevolutions for so long that their DNA becomes too divergent to viably interbreed.
First of all noone said God it might have been a designer in our own universe who isn't all powerful. When you have 2 possible theories to explain the facts and the facts support both, the facts aren't evidence for either. Please cite where you got your definition of what science is and what testing is becasue there are multiple opinions. Also you can't completely test evolution either otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate.
God, intelligent designer, FSM, whatever. There is zero real evidence for an intelligent creator. By real evidence, I mean something that supports this idea far better or more completely than it supports evolution.
I did not define science. I informed you that untestable claims have no place in any debate. Iamdavidh made a good comparison with gravity vs. God holding our shoulders down in the previous post. You can look at any and every piece of evidence for evolution (or anything else, for that matter) and say 'but a supernatural deity could have made it look that way', but since this claim cannot be tested, you will be laughed out of serious scientific discussions.
1.Not really. The wikipedia article has some of the same examples as the other one and seems to mostly just describe how they think speciation happens. The first article gives very suspicious example of speciation.
Please define what is 'suspicious' about these examples.
Scientists cant get viruses or bacteria to speciate in labs and they are describing much more complex organisms that mutate slowly and supposedly speciate. None of those examples of speciation have actually been observed in labs. Just cause you find a new specie that is similar to another one and hasn't been observed before doesn't mean it speciated.
Human knowledge of how and why evolution occurs is incomplete and no one has claimed otherwise. Because we have yet to discover the catalyst for inducing speciation in a laboratory setting does not disprove the fact that evolution does happen, on scales both small and large. We have still observed and recorded speciation and significant evolutionary changes in natural environments.
Even disregarding these accounts, macroevolution still has a formidable library of evidence in the fossil record.
Then if your theory doesn't explain the origin of life isn't it incomplete? I was under the impression that evolutionists have been trying to explain the origin of life by random chance for a while. I mean look at the miller experiments(which are flawed by the way).
No. Naturally, most of those who study evolution are also acutely interested in the origins of life, but, to anthropomorphize, evolution does not know or care how life originally came to be. It only involves what happened after that. For all evolution is concerned, God (or whoever) could have snapped their fingers and created the first incarnation of life from nothing. Not that I am a subscriber to that theory, either.
You misunderstand. I am not talking about improbabilities at the scale of your sperm example. I am talking about improbabilities at the scale that approach impossibilities. At the scale where you have to invent parallel universes just to explain life.
Then factor into the equation the unlikelihood of your parents both being created in the same way, and your grandparents, and your great-grandparents, etc. If you want, also consider the chances of your parents ever even meeting, and your grandparents, and so on, to your satisfaction. Fairly quickly, you should realize that the circumstances of your existence are composed of so many unlikely events that, in all probability, you should not exist. But you do.
If you have a die with a million sides, and you roll it a billion times, it would be weird for it not to land on any particular number at least once.
The topic of this debate is whether evolution is fact or theory and it is generally accepted by scientists that it is a theory. It really doest matter if it is a generally accepted theory it is still a theory and therefore the topic of this debate is pretty stupid. The rest of my post isn't proving it is a theory it is proving that it is a bad theory.
Evolution is actually both theory and fact. The facts of evolution are that populations change, that new species form, that there are morphological and genetic relationships. The theory is that mutation, variation, selection, and inheritance shape populations over time.
Nope. just cause i can jump 2 feet doesn't mean I can fly. There is a lot more complexity in Macroevolution which gives rise to different problems and limitations.
The analogy is that if you can walk to your mailbox, you can walk across your country.
Why do you think evolutionary biologists separated the theory into microevolution and macroevolution in the first place.
Microevolution deals with in-species change. Macroevolution deals with change above the species level.
The Modern Synthesis makes no distinction.
First of all noone said God it might have been a designer in our own universe who isn't all powerful. When you have 2 possible theories to explain the facts and the facts support both, the facts aren't evidence for either.
Of course it's god. The religious Right outwardly mock the idea that it could be a natural designer like an alien. ID is an excuse for god.
Also, ID doesn't explain the facts, it outright denies them. The facts are that we descended from apes, that animals are interrelated, and so on but ID outright denies this.
Also you can't completely test evolution either otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate.
Evolution is tested every time we sequence and search a genome, every time we find a fossil, every time we administer pesticides and antibiotics. The evidence always affirms it. The reason we are having this debate is the same reason that people think 9/11 was an inside job, or that HIV doesn't exist, or that we never landed on the moon. It is because people are often misinformed by crackpots and the rest of us who study science or politics insist upon speaking against this misinformation.
1.Not really. The wikipedia article has some of the same examples as the other one and seems to mostly just describe how they think speciation happens. The first article gives very suspicious example of speciation. Scientists cant get viruses or bacteria to speciate in labs and they are describing much more complex organisms that mutate slowly and supposedly speciate. None of those examples of speciation have actually been observed in labs. Just cause you find a new specie that is similar to another one and hasn't been observed before doesn't mean it speciated.
There are observed instances of simple organisms like E. coli gaining new metabolic traits within our lifetimes. There are instances of bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics. We have observed larger species like wolves become more docile when bred for friendliness over 50 years. Ring species all but confirm speciation via evolution.
2.Well no offense but scientists have been confident and wrong before.
Religious crackpots have been and almost always are wrong, yet you are buying into their account at every instance.
ID is quackery.
Then if your theory doesn't explain the origin of life isn't it incomplete? I was under the impression that evolutionists have been trying to explain the origin of life by random chance for a while. I mean look at the miller experiments(which are flawed by the way).
Newtonian Mechanics does not explain the Big Bang. Science is modular. It is broken into component theories which each specialise at a given phenomenon.
You misunderstand. I am not talking about improbabilities at the scale of your sperm example. I am talking about improbabilities at the scale that approach impossibilities. At the scale where you have to invent parallel universes just to explain life.
It is improbably approaching impossibility when you misconstrue what is theoretically proposed into a straw man.
First of all I don't see how anyone can say its a fact because even evolutionists say it is a theory since it hasn't been proven.
Evolutionists say it is both.
Also, the act of "proving" something is the same as "testing" it. Tests of evolution looks at the facts within the context of the hypothesis and see if the facts support or refute it. The theories of Evolutionary Biology have been "tested" against the known facts. Some haven't passed the tests, like recapitulation.
Evolutionary theory then, is a collection of all of the facts that support it. The reason it is called a theory is because there are so many facts that are in support of it.
So yes, given the fact that the word theory is used by scientists when talking about Evolution means that it has been tested which also means it has been "proven."
First of all I don't see how anyone can say its a fact because even evolutionists say it is a theory since it hasn't been proven.
Let's pretend we're talking about gravity:
First of all I don't see how anyone can say its a fact because even (those who believe in gravity) say it is (the theory of gravity) since it hasn't been proven.
So yeah, that's how they can say the theory of evolution is a fact.
Evolution has been proven to the furthest extent possible. There is no more or less proof of gravity than there is of Evolution.
For instance, I could say "There's no gravity, that's just god holding my shoulders down."
Then as you go through listing proofs of gravity I could follow each argument by saying "yeah but it still could be god holding my shoulders down."
That's how science works. It's not just "magic daddy in the sky said there's gravity therefore let it be..."
No.
You have a theory, you prove the theory. Until it becomes self-contradictory for the theory to be else-wise, it remains "theory".
Proven beyond a doubt.
Evolution is proven to the same point - further actually, than gravity.
The difference is religious people are dumb.
They observe gravity and religion doesn't say it isn't so. So they are surprised when it turns out gravity is a theory and a weaker theory than evolution.
After all, some random made up people are credited with hearing an invisible person whisper in their ear that man was created not evolved
OOOOOOHHHHHHH! well then since there is all this evidence for "creation" this crazy theory science came up with through centuries of study, experiment and observation must be completely false.
And the religious wonder why the majority of people with an IQ over 130 despise religion.
It's a disease holding humanity back. If there is a god let that absentee landlord come tell us himself what's what. Meanwhile we're here on earth with a limited time. I'll trust science to ensure scions have a better life, not superstition.
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity
>< Next time you want to copy and paste a definition, just give the link.
Gravity is not mathematically proven, in fact there are holes in the "theory" - hence "Theory of Gravity."
Really, this is dumb. Evolution happened. Your holy book was written by drug addicts and crazy people and not a word of it is true. And defending creationism is akin to defending the theory god is holding our shoulders down.
"They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse." Clearly even you are against the scientific method. You're very arguement shows you are not trying to promote science but a view that you worship as a religion.
Please give the entire quote in context next time.
And there is nothing within that quote that would imply I'm not trying to promote science. Science is not a religion, even by that quote specifically in fact.
Here's how it works:
Science has a theory, the theory is disproven, the theory is discarded and a new one is studied based on observation and math.
Religion has a theory, the theory is disproven, the religious scream heretic, attempt childishly to discredit whoever disproved the theory, and live on in a state of ignorance ignoring all common sense and proof against said theory.
Neither evolution nor gravity have been disproven.
The Bible, Koran, Walking on Water, Rising from the Dead, Virgin Births, Raining Frogs, Rivers Turning to Blood, Earth flooding, Creationism, etc, have all been disproven.
If a fish evolved into an amphibian into a reptile into a bird into a mammal, there would be loads of inbetween animals, like birds-repltiles with wings too weak to fly with. There are no follisils, bones, or any proof of these, so where did they disappear to?
anyone who uses anything from wikipedia in their argument should be discredited immediately. nothing on that site is fact. at all.
If you doubt the veracity of their information, do the proper thing and check the information compared to a credible, authoritative source. You are merely making an excuse to be lazy in information research.
Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, which means that the things in their articles have to be backed up with outside sources (thus, the source section at the bottom of the page). Yes, anyone can edit an article, but try editing one and putting something outrageous (or even untrue) and see how long it lasts.
Oh how arrogant, wikipedia is a grand tool for general information.
Are you telling me that Tiktaalik fossils, Archeopteryx fossils and Platypus don't exist, and that using wikipedia is somehow misleading in this sense?
These things do exist and I didn't think it necessary to cite peer reviewed material on such trivial matters.
Wikipedia is really quite amazing actually. You see the fact that anybody can modify it as a reason to not trust it. That would be a valid concern if it had only a small number of contributors. But, there are millions of contributors. Each going over and correcting information supplied by others.
In my mind (given the current number of users) Wikipedia is a fantastic peer-reviewed source of information.
I've chosen the first link (and then only the bird section) to write a really short comment.
The very first animal on the list already has flight feathers, which are highly complex structures. There is no reason Natural Selection would 'choose' flight feathers if there was no flight, as they are useless for insulation.
Also, the list gives a nice transition, although the last to gave me problems. The only thing they have of the Vorona are legs, but let's say that's enough for now. The ages given to the Vorona is 70-84 MYA, while it's supposed descendant, the Ichthyornis, is aged 85-95 MYA.
And I'm wondering something else (this is actual wondering, not a coy argument). Is there a transitional phase between a dinosaur foreleg and a functional wing? It seems to me (fairly uneducated in these matters) that a foreleg would be dysfunctional as a leg long before it would be functional as a wing, and thus Natural Selection would never 'choose' it. Please help.
The very first animal on the list already has flight feathers, which are highly complex structures. There is no reason Natural Selection would 'choose' flight feathers if there was no flight, as they are useless for insulation.
Firstly, feathers are excellent insulators.
The source mentions the feathers are 'not obviously adapted for flight'. While they still could have been used for such a purpose, it is also possible they developed as species markers or as tools of display during hunting or mating. Look at the 'useless' accouterments of the frilled lizard; it is not inconceivable that someday, such a trait may be co-opted for another purpose dictated by an as yet unknown environment.
Also, the list gives a nice transition, although the last to gave me problems. The only thing they have of the Vorona are legs, but let's say that's enough for now. The ages given to the Vorona is 70-84 MYA, while it's supposed descendant, the Ichthyornis, is aged 85-95 MYA.
The question mark next to the name may denote uncertainty as to the specific age. Otherwise perhaps the author of the page simply made a mistake. Evolution has no memory and does not have a singular goal in mind, so sometimes fossil lineages seem to develop a trait then lose it, only to gain it again in the future. This can lead to extant or younger species having a more 'primitive' appearance than their ancestors, as the case would be if the Vorona was a descendant of the Ichthyornis.
And I'm wondering something else (this is actual wondering, not a coy argument). Is there a transitional phase between a dinosaur foreleg and a functional wing? It seems to me (fairly uneducated in these matters) that a foreleg would be dysfunctional as a leg long before it would be functional as a wing, and thus Natural Selection would never 'choose' it. Please help.
If you were looking for an image of all the currently available fossils, arranged chronologically, I am sure there is one out there but I looked a little and did not find one.
In a brief research of feathers, the only feather noted for insulation is the down feather, which is useless for flight. It is the down we use in coats and pillows, not the flight feathers.[1]
---
The ages I got were from wikipedia, not the link (although the link cited wikipedia, so I figured it was a fair trade). But your logic makes sense.
And I'm wondering something else (this is actual wondering, not a coy argument). Is there a transitional phase between a dinosaur foreleg and a functional wing? It seems to me (fairly uneducated in these matters) that a foreleg would be dysfunctional as a leg long before it would be functional as a wing, and thus Natural Selection would never 'choose' it. Please help.
It would have most likely started out with long webbed fingers useful for grasping and climbing. The feathers or webbing could be useful for gliding, jumping, swimming. Flapping could be used as a mating ritual, to scare away predators, to make oneself look bigger, to move debris/find prey. Feathers could keep the wind off of bare skin, or act as an adornment for mating purposes. Neither Ostrich, emu, or Penguin can fly and yet they still have uses for their wings.
They've cleverly hid themselves in books, the one place they knew creationists would never look!
Actually there are many transitional species. Titaalik, is a Fish with wrist bones. The Panderichthys is a fish with a pectoral girdle. The velociraptor, while being a dinosaur and reptile, had quill knobs for sporting feathers. The gerobatrachus, is generally considered by biologists to be a common ancestor of both frogs and salamanders having characteristics of both.
There is some fact :) Not a lot where it matters though.
The cool thing about the "theory of evolution" is that since the theory cannot be tested (proven) so vigorously as to be determined 100% true, all scientists can do is keep producing and find the facts. Evolution happens.
But that's also a slight problem, as you cannot actually 'test' evolution without a few million years at your disposal. You can find fossils and make theories on what those fossils mean, but you cannot actually test them. Not like you can test gravity or calculus or the coefficient of friction.
The only facts are fossilized bones. Scientists then translate those bones into meaning. This meaning is then published in journals. But there's probably multiple different 'meanings' in the same set of bones. For now, I'd say the majority of the scientific community (especially those in fields that matter, like paleontology and geology) would agree with evolution.
Evolution has indeed been observed on many occasions, both in laboratories and in the wild. Of course, as you said, it would take millions of years to observe something as momentous as a species of fish developing legs and emerging to land, but a large change like this is just composed of uncountable smaller changes, and it is the smaller changes of which we have plenty of documented examples.
Insects and bacteria provide excellent subjects for the observation of evolution because their generation times are so short, but we have also seen examples in many other creatures. Notably, canines, which were artificially selected from a common stock of wolves, into more than 200 extant breeds, from the chihuahua to the Great Dane. To say that this evolution could not eventually result in speciation is to say that a brick cannot be used with other bricks to build a wall.
I knew about the dog thing. It's one of the arguments Creationists use to support the Flood. Two dogs could have parented all domesticated and wild dogs today.
And breeding dogs into the modern breeds isn't changing species, as your chihuahua could still mate with the Grate Dane. Just like Blacks, Whites, and Dwarfs are all Homo sapiens.
But I'm still hestiant to believe that simple gene mutations, no matter how beneficial, could change the shape of the creatures body so much. But maybe I'm just old-fashioned.
I knew about the dog thing. It's one of the arguments Creationists use to support the Flood. Two dogs could have parented all domesticated and wild dogs today.
One would have to believe in evolution in order to believe this. Also, each species is too genetically diverse to have descended from a single pair, and finally, dogs have been domesticated by humans for at least 10,000 years, far longer than the Bible even suggests the world exists.
And breeding dogs into the modern breeds isn't changing species, as your chihuahua could still mate with the Grate Dane. Just like Blacks, Whites, and Dwarfs are all Homo sapiens.
It isn't, but like I said, speciation is just what we have observed, except on a far larger scale. Given more time, is it so difficult to see how further genetic variation between chihuahuas and wolves could produce DNA too divergent to allow them to viably interbreed, like horses and donkeys or lions and tigers? If humans can craft this sort of difference in thousands of years, what kind of changes could nature engineer, in billions of years?
But I'm still hestiant to believe that simple gene mutations, no matter how beneficial, could change the shape of the creatures body so much. But maybe I'm just old-fashioned.
Where do you draw the line? Do you think there must be an inbuilt mechanism that allows creatures to adapt, but only to a certain point? If not, what is stopping genetically isolated populations of the same species from continuing to accumulate variations in their DNA until they speciate?
...dogs have been domesticated by humans for at least 10,000 years, far longer than the Bible even suggests the world exists.
The Bible actually doesn't give an age for Creation. The whole '4,004 BC' thing came from a bishop or something a while back. I wouldn't mind the world being 10,000, 15,000 or anything around there. And that's not 'evolution' as in Fish to Philosophers. That's simple natural selection, which I have no problem in. That's been proven time and time again. Although, in this case, it would be Human selection, but the same idea.
... is it so difficult to see how further genetic variation between chihuahuas and wolves could produce DNA too divergent to allow them to viably interbreed
For me, yes. Because in those original dog pairs were genes to be huge, genes to be small, genes for short, curly hair, and genes for long, straight hair. And as you breed the dogs, you breed out the tall genes for a short dog, or breed out the short genes for a tall dog. But there's a limit. Once you've reached the end of every road, achieved 'purebred' status for each path, that's it.
I'd be impressed if they bred chihuahuas back into Great Danes without adding any other dog DNA to the mix--only using chihuahuas.
Where do you draw the line? Do you think there must be an inbuilt mechanism that allows creatures to adapt, but only to a certain point
Yes, there's a point. Say your original dog (as I'm sure we'd both agree there was, at some point, only one breed of dog) had genes for both short and long fur. An ice age sets in. The children with both long-fur alleles would survive, giving a new breed of long-furred dogs. But then the ice age ends. Those dogs have lost the genes for short fur, and it would take a long time for random mutations to stumble upon the short fur gene. Could the dogs survive that long in warm weather with long fur?
But, more to the point, I'm not sure if any amount of gene-swapping could give a dog, say, a fifth leg. No matter how beneficial it would be for such a thing, I cannot see mutations forming a fifth leg.
As for isolated species, I'm sure (going back to our dogs) that if you put that original breed on Australia and Greenland, after a few dozen thousand years, the breeds would be totally different. But I'm pretty sure they'd still be dogs. But, once again, maybe I'm just old-fashoined, and they'd be different species.
The Bible actually doesn't give an age for Creation. The whole '4,004 BC' thing came from a bishop or something a while back. I wouldn't mind the world being 10,000, 15,000 or anything around there. And that's not 'evolution' as in Fish to Philosophers. That's simple natural selection, which I have no problem in. That's been proven time and time again. Although, in this case, it would be Human selection, but the same idea.
I am under the impression this age was not pulled out of thin air - it was reached, allegedly, by following the ages and family lineages provided by the Bible. Not that I think this makes it more a more valid theory, just that there is a basis for it in the Bible even if it is not explicitly stated.
The age of the world is not dependent on what you mind, and what you don't mind. I am unaware of any dating method that places the age of the world at 10000 to 15000 years old.
For me, yes. Because in those original dog pairs were genes to be huge, genes to be small, genes for short, curly hair, and genes for long, straight hair. And as you breed the dogs, you breed out the tall genes for a short dog, or breed out the short genes for a tall dog. But there's a limit. Once you've reached the end of every road, achieved 'purebred' status for each path, that's it.
I'd be impressed if they bred chihuahuas back into Great Danes without adding any other dog DNA to the mix--only using chihuahuas.
A single breeding pair of any creature cannot represent more than four alleles between them, at the most, to influence given trait. This is not enough diversity for the breadth of variation in most species, humans included. Consider also the number of recessive diseases across all species, which would require a parent to harbor at least one 'bad' gene for each and every one of them.
Nothing except for time stands in the way of breeding chihuahuas up to a large size. However, they would not become Great Danes because their DNA is still divergent and evolution does not have a specific goal. They would just be giant chihuahuas.
There is no 'end of the road' for evolution. It continues to act on populations except in Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium which is virtually impossible. Purebreeding is a human concept; nature draws no distinction between a purebred and a mutt within a species except when it comes to how fit it is. If you had a purebred line of dachshunds, and decided to breed them for speed, nothing would stop you, because there is no invisible wall or block that prevents a species from evolving, at any time.
Yes, there's a point. Say your original dog (as I'm sure we'd both agree there was, at some point, only one breed of dog) had genes for both short and long fur. An ice age sets in. The children with both long-fur alleles would survive, giving a new breed of long-furred dogs. But then the ice age ends. Those dogs have lost the genes for short fur, and it would take a long time for random mutations to stumble upon the short fur gene. Could the dogs survive that long in warm weather with long fur?
A dog that is heterozygous could exhibit long fur, provided short hair is recessive. In this way, although offspring that end up homozygous recessive may die, the trait would still survive in the population and begin to express itself again when the need arose.
However, I am unsure what you feel this proves? Additionally, we see far more than two simple varieties of length, thickness, or structure in dog's coats. There are as many varieties as their are environments, and this is true for many more traits besides coat.
But, more to the point, I'm not sure if any amount of gene-swapping could give a dog, say, a fifth leg. No matter how beneficial it would be for such a thing, I cannot see mutations forming a fifth leg.
Functional legs do not pop into existence within a single generation when we are speaking of such high order animals. They are the product of far simpler appendages, of which our distant aquatic ancestors already had four. Additionally, creatures are generally symmetrical and dogs are pretty good on four feet, so a fifth leg would really only muck things up.
As for isolated species, I'm sure (going back to our dogs) that if you put that original breed on Australia and Greenland, after a few dozen thousand years, the breeds would be totally different. But I'm pretty sure they'd still be dogs. But, once again, maybe I'm just old-fashoined, and they'd be different species.
This is just conjecture, really. Genetic drift is a real thing, well documented in humans.
It would certainly have an effect on the DNA of these hypothetical Australian or Greenland dogs. However, as this is a hypothetical and the conditions are unknown, it is impossible to say if speciation would result in this time frame. Relatively major biological developments have been observed in surprisingly short lengths of time, such as the appearance of cecal vaves in displaced lizards.
Nothing except for time stands in the way of breeding chihuahuas up to a large size. However, they would not become Great Danes because their DNA is still divergent and evolution does not have a specific goal. They would just be giant chihuahuas.
But if they got down from a common dog, shouldn't they be able to get back, and from there, to Great Danes, or are you admitting there's a limit to the genes?
A dog that is heterozygous could exhibit long fur, provided short hair is recessive
And what if it wasn't? What if it was neither recessive nor dominant? Mixed alleles brought medium fur. That was my original condition.
Genetic drift is a real thing, well documented in humans.
But, once again, we're all still homo sapien. Genetic drift is no problem to Creation. Neither is natural selection. I'm arguing that genetic drift cannot change the basic shape of an animal's body. I'm arguing that mutations cannot turn a fish into a dog.
But if they got down from a common dog, shouldn't they be able to get back, and from there, to Great Danes, or are you admitting there's a limit to the genes?
You are talking about taking a type of dog, with its own unique DNA, and breeding it until that DNA replicates the DNA of a different type of dog. Even with the relatively minute changes that differentiate a Great Dane from a chihuahua, this is monstrously unlikely. You could get them to look a lot like Great Danes, and have the ability to naturally breed with them, but they would not become Great Danes just because you were artificially selecting for the same traits. Leopardfish and leopards share similar spots but this does not mean they are anything but distantly related.
And what if it wasn't? What if it was neither recessive nor dominant? Mixed alleles brought medium fur. That was my original condition.
If what wasn't? I ask again what you think this scenario proves? Are you saying that dogs with short fur could not possible have evolved from dogs with long fur? Because this has happened, engineered by humans in recorded history.
Again, there is so much more variation in traits than is allowed by a theory like Noah's Ark. The source, which you appear to have ignored(?) mentions a human trait that has 57 different possible alleles, and many, many other animal and human traits have more 4 possible alleles. This is impossible unless novel traits and alleles can evolve, and/or every species is not descended from a single mated pair representing 4 possible alleles for any given trait.
But, once again, we're all still homo sapien.
We weren't always.
Genetic drift is no problem to Creation.
I repeat my unaddressed analogy that saying accumulated genetic drift will never result in speciation is akin to saying that accumulated bricks can never result in a brick wall.
I'm arguing that genetic drift cannot change the basic shape of an animal's body. I'm arguing that mutations cannot turn a fish into a dog.
You have not really offered any evidence to this effect except what you think or what you appear to want to believe. Evolution has been observed when it comes to color, to beak shape and size, to mass, to wing shape and effectiveness, and a host of other traits that are no more difficult for evolution to alter than basic body shape, given enough time.
You are talking about taking a type of dog, with its own unique DNA, and breeding it until that DNA replicates the DNA of a different type of dog.
I'm asking that if dogs can go one way, shouldn't they be able to go another? If they can get down from wolf to chihuahua and from wolf to Great Dane (I'm using 'wolf' as our original dog), shouldn't each be able to go back to 'wolf', and, by association, to the other end of the spectrum?
You could get them to look a lot like Great Danes, and have the ability to naturally breed with them
They already have the ability to breed with each other.
We weren't always [homo sapien].
But since we've spread across the planet (pretty early on, right?), we've all stayed human. Those near the Sahara Desert are still the same species as those living in Norway.
I repeat my unaddressed analogy that saying accumulated genetic drift will never result in speciation is akin to saying that accumulated bricks can never result in a brick wall.
Not when the bricks are thrown randomly.
You have not really offered any evidence to this effect except what you think or what you appear to want to believe.
If evolution happened once, it should happen again, right? But we don't see the very first transitional animal in today's world. That first would be a multi-cellular, self-sustaining (as in, non-parasitic) life form with only two cells. Or even five cells.
Or semi-fliers. Flying things either can or can't, there's no in-between. You can't use the ostrich and the emu here because they lost their wings. They're not gaining wings. But it seems like we'd be seeing those today, too, as other animals develop new things.
It seems that we just see completed, functional animals.
You are talking about taking a type of dog, with its own unique DNA, and breeding it until that DNA replicates the DNA of a different type of dog.
I'm asking that if dogs can go one way, shouldn't they be able to go another? If they can get down from wolf to chihuahua and from wolf to Great Dane (I'm using 'wolf' as our original dog), shouldn't each be able to go back to 'wolf', and, by association, to the other end of the spectrum?
You could get them to look a lot like Great Danes, and have the ability to naturally breed with them
They already have the ability to breed with each other.
We weren't always [homo sapien].
But since we've spread across the planet (pretty early on, right?), we've all stayed human. Those near the Sahara Desert are still the same species as those living in Norway.
I repeat my unaddressed analogy that saying accumulated genetic drift will never result in speciation is akin to saying that accumulated bricks can never result in a brick wall.
Not when the bricks are thrown randomly.
You have not really offered any evidence to this effect except what you think or what you appear to want to believe.
If evolution happened once, it should happen again, right? But we don't see the very first transitional animal in today's world. That first would be a multi-cellular, self-sustaining (as in, non-parasitic) life form with only two cells. Or even five cells.
Or semi-fliers. Flying things either can or can't, there's no in-between. You can't use the ostrich and the emu here because they lost their wings. They're not gaining wings. But it seems like we'd be seeing those today, too, as other animals develop new things.
It seems that we just see completed, functional animals.
I'm asking that if dogs can go one way, shouldn't they be able to go another? If they can get down from wolf to chihuahua and from wolf to Great Dane (I'm using 'wolf' as our original dog), shouldn't each be able to go back to 'wolf', and, by association, to the other end of the spectrum?
You can select for traits that are physically similar to a wolf's, and eventually the chihuahua will look a lot like a wolf and probably still be able to breed with a wolf but their DNA will not be identical. But evolution doesn't have a memory; it cannot access the previous changes that the chihuahua underwent, and simply reverse them.
They already have the ability to breed with each other.
I said 'naturally'. Considering their massive size difference, a chihuahua and a Great Dane are very unlikely to produce any offspring without the help of IVF.
But since we've spread across the planet (pretty early on, right?), we've all stayed human. Those near the Sahara Desert are still the same species as those living in Norway.
Yes, but we are a relatively young species, and our dissemination across the globe is even more recent. Nonetheless, there are morphological differences between ethnicities, such as height, body/limb proportion, and skin color; these are examples of genetic variations incurred since our birth as a species. They are unlikely to lead to speciation, as there is a healthy global gene flow to ensure that we are not reproductively isolated from each other.
Not when the bricks are thrown randomly.
Evolution is not random.
If evolution happened once, it should happen again, right? But we don't see the very first transitional animal in today's world. That first would be a multi-cellular, self-sustaining (as in, non-parasitic) life form with only two cells. Or even five cells.
Evolution is happening all the time, to every species. But the conditions of today are very different from the conditions in which life first arose and began to adapt. They are no longer conducive to the formation of the simple life forms you mentioned; those transition animals are long gone, replaced by their descendants.
Even if simple life forms did arise and begin to evolve again, it would be somewhere in the ocean, and they probably wouldn't last long.
Or semi-fliers. Flying things either can or can't, there's no in-between. You can't use the ostrich and the emu here because they lost their wings. They're not gaining wings. But it seems like we'd be seeing those today, too, as other animals develop new things.
Plenty of animals are capable of gliding, which is not flight, but still a form of short-distance aerial locomotion.
It seems that we just see completed, functional animals.
Evolution has been acting for billions of years; of course we are only seeing the creatures that have been the product of selection for so long. Going back millions of years, we would see creatures developing the prototypes of traits used today. Not to imply their goal was to evolve a wing. They, too, were finely adapted to their environment.
However, recall we are operating with hindsight; there very well may be many animals with traits that will one day the foundation for the evolution of another, far more complex characteristic. Take the gliding animals, are instance; it would take a colugo very little 'work', evolutionarily speaking, to turn its flaps into wings, should natural selection call for such a thing.
To you, it is. Plenty of people believe the Bible to be inerrant, and plenty more may not, but chose to believe those particular passages to be factual. This is why young earth creationism is a real thing.
If you chose to take those genealogies as symbolic, why not also stories like Noah's ark or the creation of the world in seven days?
Because the Hebrews and Jews were interested in symbolic genealogy. Did you, in fact, come from Abraham? Was Jesus a descendant of David, and, thus, a rightful heir? You didn't have to hit everybody on the way down.
And I am a young-earth creationist, just not as young as some.
But I believe creation did happen in seven literal days. Otherwise, why would God set aside the Seventh Day for His Sabbath? If it was seven symbolic days, there would be no reason for the Sabbath. (And the Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. Sorry, mainstream Christianity.)
And how could the Flood be symbolic? How could God symbolically wipe humanity and their sin from the face of the Earth? (And if the world was in one landmass before the flood, than the animals wouldn't have to swim the oceans to get there. What if the Flood caused the continents to split, and have since slowed down to their present velocities?)
I do not believe the Bible to be a reliable source of information at all so this is a difficult position for me to argue. All I can say that there is a healthy demographic of Christians that hold 100% Biblical inerrancy and I do not think their interpretation of what I see as a storybook is any more or less valid than someone who believes most of it except a few things that don't mesh with them on a personal level.
But I believe creation did happen in seven literal days. Otherwise, why would God set aside the Seventh Day for His Sabbath? If it was seven symbolic days, there would be no reason for the Sabbath. (And the Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. Sorry, mainstream Christianity.)
Evidence against creationism and a young earth consists of massive amounts of scientific data, so using the existence as a religious custom as 'proof' is not very effective, I feel. This sounds like a problem with contradictions within a religion.
And how could the Flood be symbolic? How could God symbolically wipe humanity and their sin from the face of the Earth? (And if the world was in one landmass before the flood, than the animals wouldn't have to swim the oceans to get there. What if the Flood caused the continents to split, and have since slowed down to their present velocities?)
You are having to do an awful lot of juggling to keep the global flood thing in the air; lots of the things that would be required for Noah's Ark to be true are simply impossible or at odds with data like the fossil record. There is evidence of major floods in human history, but none that were global. In all likelihood, the account was either exaggerated, or its authors genuinely thought the entire world had been flooded. There are plenty of Christians who believe this, as well, and I don't think picking and choosing x, y, and z verses to believe is any better or worse than picking a, b, and c verses to believe.
Don't listen to those guys. They don't even realize that a few fossils that might be part of the chain of missing links don't even come a fraction closer to linking the whole chain.
/
I mean imagine if evolution were actually true. Just going from four legs to two, or two to four. Just going from no hump to a hump or from no horn to a horn, going from six to eight legs or from no wings to wings or from scales to actual feathers, or from nose to bill, or e.t.c... would mean several links in a chain of organisms.
/
A few fossils that seem to be part of that chain means nothing. Unless you have like thousands of fossils of different organisms that demonstrate the actual transition and not just a grotesque deformaty that happened to be present in one animal of one species that happened to be preserved.
/
Evolutionists and Atheists sure love to say missing link fossils prove something, but the fact is that there should he links all over the place from organisms that have come gone, stayed and travelled the globe to another location, and there should be quite a bit more than a mere few of them.
/
The fact is, if atheists and evolutionists really actually saw evolution as though it were an actual fact, they'd be questioning all sorts of things and they'd never be able to believe it for sure like they pretend to now. They only believe it now because that's what politically popular science tells them to believe. There's plenty of evidence for creation, they just ignore it because that what politically popular science tells them to do.
/
They have too much faith in the scientific community to be completely fair and unbiased, completely forgetting the fact that science research and it's results are paid for, err, I mean "funded," by those that prefer one opinion over another.
/
Why else would sound scientific evidence be ostracized, downplayed, denounced for little reason, not persued in research to begin with, e.t.c...
/
It's not a conspiracy necessarily, although with the attitudes of current-day atheists that religion must be stopped at all costs, I wouldn't be suprised, but money talks, and money stops talking when science proves the source of that money to be a fool.
Don't listen to those guys. They don't even realize that a few fossils that might be part of the chain of missing links don't even come a fraction closer to linking the whole chain.
The idea that evolution is a chain is outdated and restrictive and I don't really hear people who actually understand evolution use that terminology. It is more like a tree, and just because some branches are missing doesn't mean the tree doesn't exist.
I mean imagine if evolution were actually true. Just going from four legs to two, or two to four. Just going from no hump to a hump or from no horn to a horn, going from six to eight legs or from no wings to wings or from scales to actual feathers, or from nose to bill, or e.t.c... would mean several links in a chain of organisms.
Yeah, luckily, for some modern species (like cetaceans and hominids) we have a pretty smooth series of fossils showing exactly these transitions. Also, I'm a little worried by the phrasing of this...you don't think evolution claims that every modern species descended from another modern species, in a straight line, right? Because that would be absurd.
A few fossils that seem to be part of that chain means nothing. Unless you have like thousands of fossils of different organisms that demonstrate the actual transition and not just a grotesque deformaty that happened to be present in one animal of one species that happened to be preserved.
Do you know what conditions it takes to create a fossil, to preserve bone and other tissue for millions of years? It is amazing we have the ones we do. If evolution is false, how do you explain any transitional or intermediate fossils? The devil put them there to trick us? God put them there to test our faith? The government created them to cover up the existence of aliens? Atheists commissioned them at the local pottery story because they didn't want Christians to be right?
Evolutionists and Atheists sure love to say missing link fossils prove something, but the fact is that there should he links all over the place from organisms that have come gone, stayed and travelled the globe to another location, and there should be quite a bit more than a mere few of them.
Yeah. There are. There are tons of fossils; try typing 'fossils' into Google and looking around for a scant minute before you make an argument.
The fact is, if atheists and evolutionists really actually saw evolution as though it were an actual fact, they'd be questioning all sorts of things and they'd never be able to believe it for sure like they pretend to now. They only believe it now because that's what politically popular science tells them to believe. There's plenty of evidence for creation, they just ignore it because that what politically popular science tells them to do.
Please, tell me, what kind of questions would arise if we stopped 'pretending' to believe in evolution? In fact, tell me why anyone would bother to pretend to believe in evolution. And why someone would need to pretend to believe in something that has been observed to happen, and indeed happens all around the world every single day?
They have too much faith in the scientific community to be completely fair and unbiased, completely forgetting the fact that science research and it's results are paid for, err, I mean "funded," by those that prefer one opinion over another.
Oh no, you've caught on to our conspiracy! Researchers don't really care about seeking truth or disproving faulty hypotheses...they only care about the sweet, sweet cash that comes flowing in by the millions of dollars every time they lie about something. They must be laughing at us poor, faithful fools, blindly believing their peer-reviewed reports and recreated results, all the while sipping on expensive champagne and taking their private yachts and jets to their favorite island resort, where they burn money to keep themselves warm.
Seriously, do you know what most well-known scientists owe their money and/or fame to? Discovering something new, or disproving an existing idea. People may make a solid name for themselves by adding new evidence to the library for evolution, but few of them will be remembered in history books if they haven't made an extraordinary find. They will also probably not become particularly wealthy purely from conducting research.
If someone were to come up with a real experiment that really showed evolution was not true, they would be unbelievably famous. They would easily overshadow Darwin, Dawkins, the Leakeys, etc. If a scientist was in it for the money or fame (haha) then I can't think of a better thing to do than find something that disproved such a hugely evidenced and widely accepted theory like evolution. Unfortunately for opponents of evolution, that's about as likely as a horse giving birth to a dolphin.
Why else would sound scientific evidence be ostracized, downplayed, denounced for little reason, not persued in research to begin with, e.t.c...
If you are talking about 'evidence' against evolution, literally none of it is 'sound scientific evidence'. Some of it is complex enough to seem that way to foolish people. Some of it is nothing more than a highlight of known questions concerning the finer points of evolution. None of it actually disproves the fact that evolution as a process is a very real thing.
A few fossils that seem to be part of that chain means nothing. Unless you have like thousands of fossils of different organisms that demonstrate the actual transition
We don't have thousands of fossils....we have billions.
The remains of around 400 individuals have been found for neanderthals, and this is just one species. There are at least 22 species of hominids and roughly 5 billion extinct species total, now multiply that by the number individual fossils discovered for each species.
And now you understand why scientists are so confident in Evolution.
But some (I'm not sure the statistics) extinct species only exist in a few bones; they don't even have complete fossils.
An interesting note: one such fossil is a jellyfish, dated to around 500 million years [1]. How could a jellyfish fossilize, as there is literally no bone structure to stick around after the animal is dead. Jellyfish dissolve within weeks of dieing.
But some (I'm not sure the statistics) extinct species only exist in a few bones; they don't even have complete fossils.
An interesting note: one such fossil is a jellyfish, dated to around 500 million years [1]. How could a jellyfish fossilize, as there is literally no bone structure to stick around after the animal is dead. Jellyfish dissolve within weeks of dieing.
According to the article, the Jellyfish left a film in fine sediments, when it died, which then fossilized.
Even if we only had one fossil for every extinct species (we don't) that would still give us a number in the billions, which is more than enough to construct a genealogy of life. We may not know all the details, but that life did not just spontaneously appear in present form is something we can be certain about.
There is a pattern in the fossil record, which if studied enough, is impossible to ignore.
It's all rather simple here. The matter is not the truth or falsity of evolution, but the distinction between 'theory' and 'fact'. A 'fact' is a perceived phenomena (or merely a phenomena recorded). A 'theory' is an explanation of multiple phenomena.
Thus evolution is necessarily a theory. It explains the phenomena we have recorded the best. However it cannot be a fact, in the correct usage of the word, unless it is perceived or recorded: which it can't be. It may be a true or false theory, but it is still a theory.
The opposite - or perhaps composite - of a theory is a law, not a fact.
(I'm new here, and it doesn't seem like I'm going to enjoy it much...)
Evolution is the most widely accepted theory for the existence of life as we know it because the other main alternative (creation) is scientifically unfeasible. Evolution is a theory like the atomic theory is a theory. But atomic theory doesn't come under fire because it doesn't contradict anyone's religious beliefs.
Evolution is the imagination of one man, and you believe it?
Seriously, thank you for this. It made me laugh out loud.
The idea that populations change over time predates Darwin and has continued to accumulate massive amounts of supporting evidence in the century and a half since his death. Hundreds if not thousands of people have dedicated their lives to testing his theories in thousands of studies, and although the results are sometimes surprising, they all support evolution.
Facts are prov-en beyond doubt, evolution is not.
The fact that allele frequencies change over time has been evidenced beyond a reasonable doubt.
I have fact you have no brain, okay it is only a theory like evolution.
Please, have mercy; one more of your stingingly witty insults and I just might cry.
You say science can prove evolution, then why has it not produced the same results?
You mean like evolving citrate metabolism in E. coli that did not have it at the start? Or evolving heat-resistant bacteria that can no longer live in their ancestral conditions? Or bacteria that break down the artificial fibre nylon? Or fungus that subsist on ionising radiation? Or bacteria that are immune to antibiotics? Or insects that are immune to pesticides? Or all of our modern agricultural grains, seeds and cereals which are nothing like their ancestors? Or animal husbandry which transformed wolves into chihuahuas and giant aurochs into docile milk cows?
How come apes are not becoming people? Because it is not true.
Because modern apes are not our ancestors. Because the conditions to evolve each species are unique and vanishingly improbable to reproduce. Because modern apes and modern humans are evolutionary cousins, and the common ancestor is long extinct. Because modern apes' life spans are decades and evolution of this magnitude requires thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of generations to cause this much change.
I just gave you an explanation, now act like a supposed thinker and put those facts together, or research them in a science publication, and figure out for yourself why your question was juvenile.
To date, this is the most nonsensical post I have ever seen you make. Congratulations. You truly are the master of sophistry and confusion.
2+2=4, find the exception and I will agree that facts are not always mutually exclusive.
Find the exception to what? A time when two and two do not equal four? Who is claiming this, what does this have to do with anything and even if there were a situation where it was so, how would it be evidence for or against evolution?
Until you do, then facts must be mutually exclusive.
Does your trouble with this stem from your inability to comprehend how something can be both a fact and a theory? If so, let me know and I can try to walk you through it. Until then, consider gravitational theory: we may not be sure of all the whys and hows but the theory states that objects with mass attract each other and this is a fact. The same with evolution: we may not be sure of all the whys and hows, but the theory states that allele frequencies change over generations and these changes can eventually accumulate into speciation and this, too, is a fact.
So evolution is neither fact or theory.
I would love to hear how you reached this gem of a conclusion.
Is one a singular number? Does one consist of many? One person consist of 206 bones, x number of cells, x number of protons, x number of electrons, x number of neutrons, etc. One has to prove that 2 is actually 2 beyond a shadow of a doubt for this to be fact. In theory 2+2=4 and only in theory.
A scientist from oxford(so he's a genius) said that the chances of Spontaneous generation, how evolution was started, are the same as a tornado blowing through a a warehouse full of abandoned parts and assembling itself. It is only a fact if it is proven over and over, but because there are so many flaws it must remain a theory.
Its a theory in the sense of literals. The THEORY of Evolution as a whole, however, is completely accepted in the modern scientific community. But, its still a theory as it cannot be proven, merely infinitely evidenced. Thus, its not fact.
You sound like you understand why the term 'theory' is used...which makes me think you know that being infinitely evidenced makes it as much a fact as it can ever be! Evolution is both theory and fact. Why mislead people by stating that it anything but? If working on that basis we can argue that gravitational theory isn't fact, but in the more practical sense of the word, it is clearly 'fact'..nobody would even question it without some religious agenda.
I hope you say religious in non-theist terminology. Regardless, I still adhere to THEORY seeing as thats what they are all titled as. You are not going to go up to your professor and ask him about the FACT of Evolution, or gravity for that matter, you ask them about the theory. Its just a mater of name, really. As such, I still state it as the THEORY of Evolution.
It is not a fact, by the way, as you cannot actually prove Evolution, as is true with most scientific principles. Just as the theory of Ferroactive Ether was considered fact by many, it was proven wrong with the simple example of Space. Even then, Space was considered an emptiness and now we wonder whether or not their might be anything less than space itself. Nothing(more or less) has definitive proof, a good example of which is Energy, until irrefutably proven otherwise. If Evolution was a fact, then why did this man post this debate to begin with? Ill leave you on that nice little note.
I hope you say religious in non-theist terminology.
???
I say 'religious agenda' meaning the disregard of overwhelming supporting evidence of evolution simply because it contradicts the idea that god created everything by clicking his fingers a few times over six days.
I still adhere to THEORY seeing as thats what they are all titled as.
As I already explained evolution is both theory and fact. That they use the term theory does NOT imply that it might be wrong. I've never heard anyone question gravity...never. To adopt a sentence you actually used, if I was to say "It is not a fact, by the way, as you cannot actually prove Gravity"...I'd be ridiculed. It would be stupid. I could claim that if I drop this ball how can you say for certain it will fall to the ground? Without my dropping it you cannot prove it, but based on repeated observations and overwhelming evidence it is, obviously, fact.
It is the exact same with evolution, a wealth of evidence and observations of evolution actually happening...but there's still people who deny it....and it is blatantly all down to religion.
Nothing(more or less) has definitive proof
I know what you are trying to say but to deny that evolution is a fact is like saying that gravity isn't a fact. While they are both known as 'theories' in the scientific sense, they are repeatedly observed and with a massive amount of supporting evidence they are overwhelmingly agreed upon by the scientific community. By overemphasising the importance of the title "the theory of evolution" when discussing it (especially among non-scientists)..you are blatantly seeking to mislead.
If Evolution was a fact, then why did this man post this debate to begin with? Ill leave you on that nice little note.
That 'nice little note' is probably the most hilariously bad riposte I've ever seen.
If evolution was clearly just a theory then why did he post it? People post stupid or leading questions all the time. In this case it is obvious that the person who posted this debate has a religious agenda. Evolution contradicts what his crazy, unfounded, old book says, that's why.
If you understand the concept that theory and fact are almost the same thing in science then you would accept evolution. I struggle to think of any reason anyone could deny it without religious influence.
I know, it was a bad ending. I had to go eat some dinner. REGARDLESS,
I'm not disagreeing with Evolution. At all. I believe in it. I don't point out anything religious. I just don't want you calling me a Jesus Freak as an argument or assumption.
Saying something is Theory DOES imply that it could be wrong. A completely different research point, like into the existence of God or not, could show overwhelming evidence that God exists. What then? Suddenly, The word "Fact" has no meaning because everything we thought we knew about evolution would fail. More or less. I use grandesque Hyperbole and I apologize but still. You can only declare anything a fact when it is beyond doubt, especially when you look at time from an end-of-time perspective. Suddenly, the only fact is, if Evolution were proven wrong, that Humanity thought that Evolution was right for the Longest time. That would be the only fact. Until something can be proven beyond doubt, its still theory unless it has modern, recorded evidence. BESIDES, I was merely making the argument from the start that the Theory of Evolution was Theory IN NAME ALONE and giving some debatable points to make on why its still considered such and Not the "Fact of Evolution." I'm not trying to mislead anyone, I'm making a statement that was supposed to be somewhat funny because THERE IS NO ARGUMENT TO BE MADE EXCEPT THAT EVOLUTION IS SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED. This whole debate is pointless bickering back and forth until someone mutters an insult and then fingers are pointed and names are called and it becomes irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Throughout you're argument you state a multitude of supposed Absolutes, such as the last sentence in your second section, or the last sentence in your third section. Both of these statements are assumptions of Bible-Blabbing and extreme-ism and are both not true nor very appreciated. Merely a suggestion on my part, but you should adjust your arguments to be comparative and more, err, comprimisable in the sense that you are right but don't wish to necessarily insult everything your opponent sees. Like you did in your very last sentence. Giving what is not an assumed absolute, but rather a statement of generalized absolute. Far more effective. Again, just a suggestion.
I know, it was a bad ending. I had to go eat some dinner.
haha, fair enough.
I don't point out anything religious. I just don't want you calling me a Jesus Freak as an argument or assumption.
The majority of people who argue against evolution are proponents of creationism, which I will admit, does rile me. I'm not implying that you are a 'Jesus-freak' and I get the feeling we're arguing the same point here. I'm saying that theory and fact are almost the same thing in science, and you're saying that scientific findings are 'theory' by definition. We don't really disagree, I just don't want the fact that the term 'theory' is used to become part of a creationists arsenal. I wanted to make it clear that the scientific use of the term 'theory' isn't the same as the colloquial 'theory'.
You can only declare anything a fact when it is beyond doubt, especially when you look at time from an end-of-time perspective.
I'm sure most biologists would argue that evolution is beyond doubt but I get what you mean. The reason I'm arguing against you is I feel that the vast majority of opponents to evolution on this website are fervent creationists, and I don't want the fact that evolution is a 'theory' (in scientific literals), to be hijacked by the god-brigade as an argument against logic.
I was merely making the argument from the start that the Theory of Evolution was Theory IN NAME ALONE and giving some debatable points to make on why its still considered such and Not the "Fact of Evolution.
I completely agree with you. The only thing I would want to add is that the term 'theory' in science, is the closest thing to 'fact' that any scientific proposal can ever become.
I'm not trying to mislead anyone, I'm making a statement that was supposed to be somewhat funny because THERE IS NO ARGUMENT TO BE MADE EXCEPT THAT EVOLUTION IS SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED.
and you are right, and as I said it is a stupid and leading question. I didn't really think you were trying to mislead anyone. I more just felt that your argument could be misinterpreted to undervalue the findings of evolution.
Throughout you're argument you state a multitude of supposed Absolutes, such as the last sentence in your second section. Both of these statements are assumptions of Bible-Blabbing and extreme-ism and are both not true nor very appreciated.
Having read both of them back it sounds like I was directing those statements at you personally, but it was meant to be in a general sense. I'd debated the topic with someone else recently and I must admit I might have confused yourself with them. I had thought that you were a pseudoscientist closet creationist at first, so apologies for that!
Merely a suggestion on my part, but you should adjust your arguments to be comparative and more, err, comprimisable in the sense that you are right but don't wish to necessarily insult everything your opponent sees.
Haha, taken on board. The problem for me is that I have no room for compromise on 'creationism vs evolution'...which is usually what these thing are about (even though I know that's not the case with yourself). I do agree that I should try to limit just insulting peoples perspective, for doing so I apologise. I try to focus on respectful debate, but on occasion I feel I want to highlight absurdities in peoples perspective and to joke about the topic is sometimes quite effective, however it often reduces the debate into ineffective ridicule. I appreciate that in your case (bearing in mind the mistaken identity) it wasn't fair or accurate, so genuine apologies.
As I've mentioned before in this particular debate, scientifically "proving" a theory is just testing it according to the facts.
It is hard facts that grant the theory of evolution its immense amount of support.
It cannot be theory without lots of facts.
And the question is, "Evolution - is it a theory or a fact?" I understand that to mean evolution in general. Yes everything evolves. Bricks, walking sticks, applications, people. Fact.
Now my argument may have been covered already but i am coming into this late so forgive me. Evolution is a theory for the simple fact that it has yet to be proven. The missing link anybody? besides the fact that who are we to say that god didn't create evolution? that he didn't make us with the ability to evolve to the damage we do on the earth. i won't ever believe evolution until it is proven which it will never be in my opinion.
Now my argument may have been covered already but i am coming into this late so forgive me. Evolution is a theory for the simple fact that it has yet to be proven.
Even theories that are true will never be proven because proof is the domain of mathematics and deductive logic.
The missing link anybody?
The missing link is an outdated religious argument leftover from the days when people thought there was a Great Chain of Being, with all living things inherently ranked from top to bottom on a ladder based on the amount of 'spirit' versus 'matter' that they possessed.
I hate to appear on this side of the board really, but evolution is only a theory - a compelling and much-supported theory but still only a theory because we have no actual proof. All theories are not created equally though, if you will pardon the expression: the theory of creationism, for example, is clearly silly - there is no evidence at all to support that one while the theory of evolution has much support. The actual mechanism of evolution and some other details, namely probable ancestors, causes, time, and so on, are hotly debated and are likely to never be resolved, but the notion that species evolve over time is only really questioned by folks who dislike the idea that our ancestry has been guided by rather random environmental pressures and stresses. This is fine with me. I am not embarrassed to admit that I pray at times and my prayers aren't directed at Darwin.
A message from the heart to debaters who fight in favor of evolution. Adaptation is not evolution no matter how you define it. Adaptation takes a formed life form and adapts within its own fully formed makeup. It doesnt adapt by becoming a different creature.
Evolution defined as used to describe the establishment of life and nature as we sknow it is not adaptation. As a term used in the debate of Creator vs self creation of evolution.
So please stick to the definition. Adaptation is subtle. Evolution is creative in a foundational sense
Adaptation would be darkening of pigmentstion or lengthening a nose to adapt to changing atmosphere. But there is no drastic changes needed for evolution.
I dont argue and poke fun out of a dislike for you. I am hoping at some point you will question reasonably and logically some of the things you accepy as truth and isnt founded in science or logic or reasoning.
I am not being mean or cruel, I'm challenging you for a greater purpose, to question and weigh reasonably.
Like evolution starts aftwr life forms are already in process and builds on it, balancing nature in the process to foster the evolving life forms and to support its progressive action to its current presentation.
Yet when proof of the Bible has connections confirmed, in front of your face, it is denied.
Arent these connections similar. Yet at least with the Bible evidence is tangable and visible, and not just assumptive, as seen in the foundation of the biginning of life, the first life form that assembled itself to start with, then the balancing act needed to progress from the beginning.
Neither of these at the foundation are logical, no matter what biology connects similarities, and no matter what adaptations we see after the fact of a living thing at its completion.
There is only evidence of biological simillarites. Not sound science in the beginning of the first formed living thing. Nor in the balance required beyond that, with entropy working against it from the creation of the first cell, and naturally beyond that!
Creatures with eyes have eye genes. But its a big jump to then say life formed and stabilized out of nonliving matter.
Its a religion of idiots.
Its the greatest insult to the Creator. The actual creator.
Man being a god created himself out of a process from nothing.
Man breathed life into himself out of evolving from a combination of dead matter.
Not even another god, a nothing god ... the earth was void, unformed, darkness over the deep. Into nothing He brought forth life, into chaos He established the balance for life to continue.
And evolution is the god nothing. The self god, nature and man created self by selection of the best. The self made man, evolved from nothing.
If I didnt care I wouldnt try to give so many points, from so many directions. I literally try to come from different points of evidence. Not just be fearful of Hell or I believe so you should believe.
I have argued by way of continuity and sensibility of the message. Many religions lack a reasonable purpose. Like compare Islam to Christianity - Islam is an idea of a standard of moral living or holiness, has unfairness and violence st its cire, and shows God to be cruel and demanding. Murderous and not opposed to decietful practices, lies, and a deceptive trickster. With His will forced upon man, with execution of natural law in force through violent people who say they are Gods standard in the earth and His executioners. And Islam believed God accepts the most violent on the earth.
Not like the Beattitudes!
Because His standard is by curve, works can achieve righteousness. Even though man cannot match righteosness, but prayers and violence bridge the gap. So in other words God judges murderers by accepting murders. Murder motivation is judged righteous or unrighteous.
One type of murder leads to rewards of righteusness, the other reaps judgement because it is not murdering to promote Allah Mohommad and Islam. - Does this make sense as a religion to please a Deity?
Compared to Christianity that has a judicial foundation, with forgiveness and pardon at its roots. And a solution that makes sense. Wereas Islam says the murder of a sinner provides them a possibility of attonement.
So where are the fair rules. And what society nation or kingdom has trived under this principle. None? Then how does this model show a Kingdom of God that exist under the principle "a kingdom divided ...falls"
Christianity has a logical order of events, a clear message that has clarity based on reasonable logic. Its not unrestrained violence. And its judicial and fair, even patient in its action to restore mankind and each individual.
It has line upon line an unchanging message and directive. It is ligical in its reasoning and purpose and in its conclusion and in its method progression and its finality in the end. With every work of prophesy explained with a logical reason for its beliefs views and actions.
So Islam shoots in the dark and if you are extreme enough you will have eternal life having sex with many virgins. Do they then stay virgins after sex, or is this a momentary reward? Or does Allah dispose of the virgins and replenish then throughout all eternity? Does it make any sense?
Compared to Christianity, which is descriptive and explanatory and clear on what righteousness is, and what is expected, and also spells out the dilemma and the solution. And it makes complete sense. To the point that many fictional stories, books, and entertainment follow its logical progression. Clarity and purpose logical and clear.
Even if you are blind spiritually, Christianity has a logical process from problem to solution. Unlike Islam and others that are disjointed and without any purpose or continuity, and without a seemless connection.
Christianity has a seemless connection from the fall.
Each author draws from and expounds on details uniform with everything built in the same materials, in the same manner, with its final conclusion and outcome in the same spirit from beginning to end.
Creation, image, two forces, a fall of angels, a fall of man, two images, free will, then became weak will, a wrestle to do good, under judgement, dudt to dust, (even science says many things come from one thing, the Bible tells us why and how, He formed creatures and man from dust.
So the Bible says a hand picked up elements that were deposited on the earth, and the dust He picked up, He made many life forms from it. So even though we say He spoke it into existence.
The Bible was more knowledgable than any other sourse, because the elements were in the dust of the earth and assembled! They just did not assemble and breathe life into themselves.
We see consistency, and science confirms the Biblical eyewitness account. The elements in the dust were purposely squeezed together and life was breathed into it and nature balanced by the Creators intelligent design.
So the fall back to dust after life is lived, the serpent grounded to eat dust. And then a promise of seed, with enmity between seed of serpent and Seed of Salvation.
A judgememt decree that separates fallen dust from the Creator. And the Bible goes on to expand this to a final conclusion returning man to a place prior to the fall. Where Adam brought death to mankind, Jesus brought redemption, to return Creation back to the Creator. With choice given kust as man was given in the beginning. Eat from the tree of life or feed from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Knowledge of good and evil, a crazy thing, does God hate knowledge? No God is knowledge and understanding. So then what is the tree of knowledge of ... Its the difference between free will to choose by suggestion outside of being part of our nature. Free will is now weak will, knowledge of good and evil means we became trees of knowledge of good and evil. We bear both fruits, we are divided within ourselves, conflict of will from with-in, not from with-out.
So then the Deity gave seed into a virgin, to bring God into mans fall, in order to make a pathway back, which He carries us through. And Him walking in flesh, taking our judgement, and empowering us with forgiveness and His Spirit, bringing us through the eye of the needle out from under the fall.
So one message and its pretty simple to understand. Even if you do not believe in God, the logic is at least uniform and consistent, and follows a reasonable patterns, with its course taking a reasonable approach, resulting in a logical conclusion that is consistent with the entirety as a whole and also cosistent with each detail mentioned and/or expanded on.
Jesus came to save the lost. I try to reason with you and others to at least have you look and weigh the evidence,. And apply a true evaluation of the presentations of evidence! Grenache is the only one so far that even acknowledged points made that are possibilities used in proof of at least Jesus existing and crucified.
But none weigh the points made and then setting them in a pile of possibility to then measure when all the evidence is compiled in the evidence room.
I value the biology presented. Even if I'm challenging in response. Because biology is factual, adaptation and mutation are factual and scientific. But evolution as creation is neither factual, probable, possible, or scientific.
Because no one can really explain evolution as creating life without input of something. In other words a cook cooking an elaborate recipe may need to assemble some ingredients, then make a reduction, then add further ingredients. Its a dance not possible because independent steps need to be taken, then added to the perfect reductio, also made from the available ingrediets.
Its not possible because its not probable, and even if it were its extreme jumps to fully formed creatures and eco system we see in nature and the firm basic physical laws of which everything follows. EXCEPT for when purposely with effort and energy and design they are moved against for a purposed outcome.
Like its against natural law for man to fly. But putting together many natural laws, intelligence can design something using natural laws to defy natural laws. Thats like a miracle!
God takes many natural laws and lets the universe be governed by them, but He can take them and work them in His intelligent design to defy natural laws.
Because He is outside of natural law. Just like the intelligence creating air travel, intelligence takes knowledge and then uses it in accordance with natural laws. Yet can use them to defy natural laws.
As Islam proclaims a religious world view, there are illogical and unreasonable parts that do not fit even within their own religion.
So also Evolution as a force explaining creation proclaims a world view that is illogical in accordance with human experience and also natural law, and order of reasonable methodical conclusion. The first foundation is illogical and then ignored by academia. With nothing more than skepticism without challenge, teaching skeptism and promoting unscoentific methods - refuse challenge, and remove thought, and ignore contraficting data without measuring it validity and merit.
Even what is measured is selective through a preconceived narrow limitation of information. Evolution as creation ignores everything outside of that lens. Is that a scientific thing to do?
And it results in ignorance of knowledge, shamed by its evidence disproving its foundations and origin, specifically the origin of life.
Evolution as an explanation of lifes origin leaves firm logical reasoning unanswered. And there is more faith required for creation by evolution than by the Creator as God, specifically God of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.
The Bible answers all questions, and has many levels of evidence confirming its authority to give answers reasonably and with logic in accordance with natural laws, cause, effect, result. Connections in order, logical order!
Like what happened for the 1st living cell to exist, against odds and destructive chemical processes that were unfavorable without intelligence.
At least look with an open mind and then piece together what makes sense.
Its not possible for God to not exist. All the evidence shows He exists and there are to many coincidences in the Bible to be dismissed without a fair trial.
Unfortunately many of you are closed jurors who do not weigh any points of evidence because of preconcieved faulty information. -Starting with foundational what archaeological findings at least prove historic merit in the basic sense, then beyond that what is the true messages, what contradictions actually exist, and what prophesies actually say, and what liklihood would they be fulfilled as they are written, and the other validations, and also the logic of likelihood in action of individuals and nations, and is there threads that weave a complete picture or is it twisting imaginations.
So Im tying to have people step back and be objective and truely weigh the evidence. Your belief is your belief. But has it been openly challenged by yourself weighing evidence not just "beliefs?"
The long journey of the advancement of mankind and the expansion of the frontiers of knowledge as well as our awareness of the Universe, of which we are a minuscule part, would never have even started if no one had challenged the superstitious nonsense which forms the basis of all religions.
I agree, science has not produced a rational explanation for the ''beginning of life'', as the concept of the ''big bang'' is, in my opinion almost as fanciful a notion as the various man made religions.
However, science, and not hocus pocus religion will someday come up with the answer.
Let's hope there will a sufficient number of people able to recognise and understand the scientific proof and have the maturity to discard the of the mumbo jumbo which was spawned from the ignorance of the bronze age
So then my question is, SINCE admittedly no answer exists in science, then by what reasoning and by what facts do you dismiss the possibility of a Creator?
And by what reasoning and by what facts do you declare religion and faith as irrational? And without merit to explore and weigh as evidence of a Creator. Science has no answer! Yet all its minions think, it is actually confirmed as fact! How dare educators lie to children and treat speculation as facts!!!
It seems it is irrational to close of possibilities of answers and proof of their sourses without really being objective.
So therefore evolution admittingly doesnt know so it assumes. So then how is it scientific to dismiss weighing evidence of a Creator and dismiss proving validations of His Word.
So evoluyion creationists expect faith in an unknown process, while refusing evidence of a Creator.
The Bible is an authority yhat has as much if not even more confirmable evidence of validity as biology. Biology days this part is in this animal and also in another, and in a controlled experiment this minifact is confirmed, an eye can develope on a wing of a fly. So therefore evolution explaims creation.
Yet we have proof the Bible is of supernatural origin, with facts unknown to the writers according to their limitations in advancements, yet it is not allowed to show evidence.
If we are debating origin then shouldnt we validate what is possible. And since lifed origin is unknown than why isnt a Creator possible? And since scripture 8s historical and closer to the date of origin to the first signs of mankind like us is about 6000 years ago, then shouldnt we add it to experiment also?
then my question is, SINCE admittedly no answer exists in science, then by what reasoning and by what facts do you dismiss the possibility of a Creator?
What facts do you use to dismiss the possibility that God is responsible for evolution? I would think that you should be asking why a theist doesn't believe in God. I can't imagine a God that would create the world that we live in. That's why I don't believe in God. It had nothing to do with evolution.
And by what reasoning and by what facts do you declare religion and faith as irrational?
It's followers sound irrational like you.
And without merit to explore and weigh as evidence of a Creator.
I have explored evidence of God. You have not.
Science has no answer!
Science does not deal with God. Religion deals with God and science explains His work. Stop rejecting science. It makes no sense to believe in God, but not believe in His work.
Yet all its minions think, it is actually confirmed as fact!
Including you, dipshit.
How dare educators lie to children and treat speculation as facts!!!
You don't think they are speculations. You agree with everything taught in school.
It seems it is irrational to close of possibilities of answers and proof of their sourses without really being objective.
Like claiming science has no answers before listening to what science says. How many times will I have to point out your hypocrisy?
So therefore evolution admittingly doesnt know so it assumes. So then how is it scientific to dismiss weighing evidence of a Creator and dismiss proving validations of His Word.
Evolution does not do that. Religious people dismiss weighing evidence of evolution and religious people decided God is not involved with evolution.
So evoluyion creationists expect faith in an unknown process, while refusing evidence of a Creator.
Repeating false statements does not make them true.
The Bible is an authority yhat has as much if not even more confirmable evidence of validity as biology.
Unfortunately that isn't true. I could understand your point of view if it was true, but it isn't.
Biology days this part is in this animal and also in another, and in a controlled experiment this minifact is confirmed, an eye can develope on a wing of a fly
You can't make statements like this and continue the lie that you believe science.
So therefore evolution explaims creation.
You didn't describe any creation. Therefore, your conclusion is inaccurate.
Yet we have proof the Bible is of supernatural origin,
Quite the contrary, we know for sure that the Bible was written by natural humans.
with facts unknown to the writers according to their limitations in advancements, yet it is not allowed to show evidence.
There are far more advanced facts in other writings at the time. The vague statements that you interpret once facts are learned by science don't count as evidence.
If we are debating origin then shouldnt we validate what is possible.
If you want to eliminate possibilities you can't believe in the thing you are eliminating.
And since lifed origin is unknown than why isnt a Creator possible?
Evolution does not prevent a creator. Your question does not lead to the conclusions that get from the question.
And since scripture 8s historical and closer to the date of origin to the first signs of mankind like us is about 6000 years ago, then shouldnt we add it to experiment also?
Evolution doesn't disprove the Bible. In fact there are many Christians who do reconcile evolution and the Bible.
These sorts of debates aren't the core issue of the Bible, so it is kind of futile that we debate them all so fervently. Whether you're a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist doesn't particularly matter in terms of the Biblical world-view.
If evolution contradicts the bible, then the bible is incorrect.
Evolution doesn't disprove the Bible. In fact there are many Christians who do reconcile evolution and the Bible.
I know that there are Christians who incorporate science into their religion, but the fundamentalists are correct that evolution is unbiblical. The bible makes a number of distinct, testable claims about the world, and evolution contradicts these (mainly that all life was created separately, and that we are descended from a pair of humans).
If you can ignore the bible in favour of science, that is fine. However you cannot defend yourself against very well theologically for doing so. You are heterodox.
These sorts of debates aren't the core issue of the Bible, so it is kind of futile that we debate them all so fervently. Whether you're a strict evolutionist, or a strict creationist doesn't particularly matter in terms of the Biblical world-view.
Superficially you are correct, but if you dig deeper it is apparent that these kinds of debates exist precisely due to religious denial of science.
Firstly, remember that the Bible is a fiction. In the same way a country is merely a legal fiction, the collection of books that is the Bible is a fiction - we made that up. As such it is not inconceivable that part is to be treated differently. There are a great many Christians - from what I can extrapolate, this includes Lewis and Chesterton - that suppose the OT, and especially Genesis, is to be taken as mythology, and treated as such. Considering this arguments saying that evolution debunks all of the Bible and that Genesis is literally conflicted with science become nonsense. (On a side note, genetics agrees with the Adam and Eve hypothesis - in a certain sort of way.)
Theologically it is fine.
One of the wonderful things is that it is the adherents of scientism that have a problem with religion being different from science. Interestingly, the Bible doesn't care if science doesn't agree with it, scientists do... The central issue of Christianity is an honest acceptance of the need for man to be reconciled with God. It's not really about the Bible. In the same way evolution isn't about the origin - it's about a biological explanation of life - Christianity is about being reconciled with God: no more, no less. (There's a lot more than one would suppose initially, but science isn't the issue man's relation with God is.)
Firstly, remember that the Bible is a fiction. In the same way a country is merely a legal fiction, the collection of books that is the Bible is a fiction - we made that up. As such it is not inconceivable that part is to be treated differently. There are a great many Christians - from what I can extrapolate, this includes Lewis and Chesterton - that suppose the OT, and especially Genesis, is to be taken as mythology, and treated as such. Considering this arguments saying that evolution debunks all of the Bible and that Genesis is literally conflicted with science become nonsense.
As I said, I recognise that some theologians fudge their interpretations. They choose to arbitrarily treat portions of the bible as figurative but others as literal, with a general lack of consistency. Why can't they treat it all as mythology or all as fact? Or is god's word only partially authoritative?
It's part of the psychology of being too invested in an ideology to let it go.
(On a side note, genetics agrees with the Adam and Eve hypothesis - in a certain sort of way.)
Actually not at all, our genetic ancestors were never a pair, the ancestral "eve" and "adam" are merely named in dedication to mythology. They never occupied the same place and time.
Theologically it is fine.
If it were fine we wouldn't see all the modern and historical arguments between sects.
One of the wonderful things is that it is the adherents of scientism that have a problem with religion being different from science. Interestingly, the Bible doesn't care if science doesn't agree with it, scientists do...
Scientists care because if one makes a claim, it ought to be researched.
The central issue of Christianity is an honest acceptance of the need for man to be reconciled with God. It's not really about the Bible. In the same way evolution isn't about the origin - it's about a biological explanation of life - Christianity is about being reconciled with God: no more, no less. (There's a lot more than one would suppose initially, but science isn't the issue man's relation with God is.)
This is your theology, however. Other sects may say the opposite, that the religion is all about having faith in the bible as god's word.
No, I don't want to be judgemental. However may I suppose that you take the Bible a bit more seriously, engage with it. Jesus doesn't want us to be mindless followers - love with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your MIND!
Also, Paul speaks of resurrection of the dead: if it's not true then faith is useless. It's quite clear that if Christianity is not true we are commanded not to believe it. As such we should always think and weigh, to make sure it is true. I agree the Bible is true, but that's not the only reason I argue against things.
There are six different meanings of Evolution. Which one do you mean?
The Six Meanings of Evolution
Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”
Only the last one, micro-evolution, has anything to do with real science. For all of human history we have observed variations within the kinds such as 400± varieties of dogs coming from a dog-like ancestor such as a fox or a wolf. Dogs produce dogs and corn produces corn. There may be great variations within the basic kind but that is NOT evidence that dogs and corn are related! Every farmer on planet earth counts on micro-evolution happening as he develops crops or herds best suited for his area, but he also counts on macro-evolution NOT happening. Anything other than minor changes within the kind is not part of science. Evolution as defined as macro-evolution is a religion in every sense of the word. People are welcome to BELIEVE the first five types of evolution, but they are not part of science or common sense.
varieties of dogs coming from a dog-like ancestor such as a fox or a wolf.
First you say this, showing that you do realize that chihuahuas, Irish wolfhounds, and everything in between descended from this...
Dogs produce dogs...
...then you say this, which would make your first statement impossible. If dogs always produced dogs, then wolves would always produce wolves, and dogs would never have come into existence.
that is NOT evidence that dogs and corn are related!
No one is trying to claim that dogs and corn are sister species, but dogs, corn, and all living things share a pretty big chunk of genetic material. This is a fact.
Every farmer on planet earth counts on micro-evolution happening as he develops crops or herds best suited for his area, but he also counts on macro-evolution NOT happening.
Domesticated plants and animals are not subjected to natural selection nearly as much as artificial selection at the discretion of the farmers themselves.
Also, considering farmers generally don't plant corn for millions of years in succession, macroevolution is even less of a concern.
Anything other than minor changes within the kind is not part of science.
Yes they are, because these changes can be scientifically explored and explained and their results can be traced through the fossil record. Theoretically, they could even be observed in a lab, if a study could be conducted for a long enough period of time.
Evolution as defined as macro-evolution is a religion in every sense of the word.
Except it's based on facts.
People are welcome to BELIEVE the first five types of evolution, but they are not part of science or common sense.
Something about this is ironic but I can't quite put my finger on it...
http://www.drdino.com/six-meanings-of-evolution
Just realized you copied and pasted your entire argument. Bravo.
The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection.
When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.
Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.
Yes, scientists have proved that ADAPTATION exists.
EVOLUTION, (i.e. that humans are from monkey, who came from fish, from an organic accident) isn't supported at all. I think that this debate is debating whether the latter is true or not– in that case, there is not evidence supporting it. The fact that fruit flies have shown to get wrinkled wings in now way connects to how humans are from monkeys.
And, for evolution to work, from the first simple living organism to the indescribably complex US, there needs to be a crazy above fifty percent mutation rate in between generations to make those "mutations that helps us and advance us". What are the mutation rates that have been recorded? Astonishingly low, because if a successful organism mutated that much, it would die off.
uuurgh, another debater with a religious agenda posing as someone with scientific knowledge but spouting nothing but pseudoscience.
EVOLUTION isn't supported at all.
absolute nonsense. It pains me to even reply to a statement like this.
there needs to be a crazy above fifty percent mutation rate
..and here was me thinking you understood evolution.
From your other post I thought that you understood the term 'theory' in the scientific sense. In the colloquial sense, theory means 'speculation' or 'opinion; in the scientific sense a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions. In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory. Evolution is a theory and fact in the same way that you having a nose on your face is theory and fact.
EVOLUTION, (i.e. that humans are from monkey, who came from fish, from an organic accident) isn't supported at all. I think that this debate is debating whether the latter is true or not– in that case, there is not evidence supporting it.
No I think that's how you're narrowly defining it so you can argue against it.
We evolved. That is a fact. It doesn't matter whether it was from monkey like creatures or not. The path our ancestors actually took through history don't matter. The fact remains that we have ancestors and their genes were different. They in turn had ancestors and THEIR genes were different. That is evolution.
Evolution has been proven, it has been observed on a micro and macro scale in biological organisms. There is a theory but independent of this, though there might be a few glitches in the highly specific assertions of some elements of the theory, the fact of evolution is indisputable. The entire basis of modern biology is based on the theory of evolution, the reason for this is that all other possible explanations are invalidated by the evidence
I am Christian and I should say evolution is a load of crap. But first off, what about the dinosaurs?
Also I think that although Adam and Eve were the first two humans, others were evolved.
When God created the earth, he went by his days. Now that could have been billions of our days or just one. But for now I will say they are far longer than our days.
So when God was creating the earth, he figured that after Adam and Eve, he would help the earth development made evolution.
By the time Adam and Eve got to Earth, the dinosaurs were gone and we already had civilizations happening.
If God's days are not equal in length to human days, then where does the practice arise of resting on Sundays, the same day that God rested after completing creation?
By the time Adam and Eve got to Earth, the dinosaurs were gone and we already had civilizations happening.
Also how did Adam and Eve arrive amidst established civilizations if they were the first humans on earth?
I am glad you have found a way to accept evolution in spite of being a believer in the Bible, but you have made some bewildering decisions about how the opposing explanations supposedly meshed.
Yeah, it is a pretty radical way of thinking towards it, but I'm not one of those idiots to just reject the theory of evolution just because some over religious people don't accept it.
Actually we don't know that dinosaurs were gone by that time. We don't actually know when the first human was on this earth. And even if we could pinpoint the time frame rather than merely speculate it, we'd only know of Noah's time because the flood likely wiped just about all traces of man from the face of the earth.
/
As for civilizations, well, you probably don't realize this, but back then the Bible says people lived for centuries. Adam lived to be over 900 years old. His children after him lived for centuries as well. Well, supposing that's true, then that's why there was civilizations back then. You think that the Bible covers all the facets of their lives back then? Do you not realize that we aren't told every detail?
So just because in one paragraph, Able was murdered and in another there was a city doesn't mean that the city existed at the same time that Able was murdered or at the time when Adam left the garden. It only means that it appeared eventually and someone was living there. Just because the Bible doesn't say, "and so many years later," does not mean that it wasn't so many years later. Geez, come on? Do you want the Bible to spell out every little thing that you could easily realize in your own head?
/
Think about it, after about 18 - 20 years we can start reproducing, for the most part, safely, as in the mother won't have complications because her uteris isn't ready yet. Now imagine you live for centuries. If you're having children with your wife for the purpose of bringing more hands to help with the work of survival, you're probably shooting for about 1 kid every 2 to three years depending on supply of resources such as food. And since food was likely very plentiful, they were probably having kids about every year or two.
/
Well, if you remember middle school, you can see that populating an area and creating a city or town wouldn't take but maybe 40 to 60 years. And when you live for centuries, 40 to 60 years is, as the Doctor put it, a pit stop. It's easy to see why the Bible jumped ahead in time so easily, because not much happened other than survival. There were not many big lessons to learn or examples to use, so not much is written because not much is religiously significant for us.
So, please, you have more common sense, I assume, don't just assume there were civilizations.
/
As for the dinosaurs, again, well, I believe they all died in the flood and the reason so many of their fossils remain is only because of the sudden burial under massive amounts of sediment as the water crashed through land as it rose higher and higher. Maybe they didn't and they just died out in environmental changes as many in science speculate. They didn't evolve into birds because that would only mean that one dinosaur survived, the one that is the root for the entire bird family. Birds all have several things in common, and to have that many things in common would mean one common ancestor had to have all of those things. That would mean one dinosaur, just one.
As for civilizations, well, you probably don't realize this, but back then the Bible says people lived for centuries.
Oh ye of little faith. It's been some time, but I've read the Bible. I recall many of its more ridiculous claims.
The rest of your post misses the point completely, because I was making no claims about how old humans need to be to reproduce, how long it takes to establish a civilization, or whether or not the Bible is in chronological order.
The person I was disputing seems to believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans in existence, while simultaneously claiming that, when they were put on earth, human civilization existed. Even if I believed Adam and Eve existed, this would be logically impossible. If this is not what they were claiming to believe, then my post is inapplicable, but it truly seems that way to me.
As for the dinosaurs, again, well, I believe they all died in the flood and the reason so many of their fossils remain is only because of the sudden burial under massive amounts of sediment as the water crashed through land as it rose higher and higher. Maybe they didn't and they just died out in environmental changes as many in science speculate.
If dinosaurs had all died in a massive world wide flood, then their positions in the fossil layers would not variate so in both position and age. A single layer that would have included all dinosaur fossils would also be bursting at the seams with the fossils of every other creature that died in the flood, because the conditions of the flood would have been excellent conditions for creating fossils. This is not how it is.
They didn't evolve into birds because that would only mean that one dinosaur survived, the one that is the root for the entire bird family. Birds all have several things in common, and to have that many things in common would mean one common ancestor had to have all of those things. That would mean one dinosaur, just one.
Not sure why you think this is so impossible. Humans have been traced back to a single common ancestor through the male line less than 90,000 years ago, and a single common ancestor through the female line less than 200,000 years ago.
No where in the bible does it say how long the days were when he created the earth. one day could have spanned over a million years. so if that is true (which it is0 then in order to rest on the "seventh day" we would have to determine exactly how long each of those days were and rest that long. Which we will never be able to figure out because A. it was forever ago and no one was there. and B. the sun and moon were not created till half way through the week. Resting on the seventh day was something created by the church hundreds of years ago and did not exist when religion itself was created. Everyone who blindly believes in god and the bible and the church gives up the right to think for themselves and therefore is ignorant.
We try to celebrate the day of rest, the seventh 'day' of creation. as we cannot say how long each day was, and cannot celebrate on the perfect 'God Sunday', we celebrate on our sunday.
