Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Your reason for accepting evolution
Franatic25
Junior Member (Idle past 5949 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 91 of 111 (432900)
11-08-2007 10:57 PM


Well, to be fair...I have a good understanding of the bible...and it could easily be interpreted that the "days" it took to complete the earth and hence man are not literal. It also says that to god the day is a thousand years, and a thousand years a day. Time would have no meaning...only to the writer. But I am not defending the claim, just displaying how people who have a general understanding of current scientific believe and theory could still hold onto faith.
But even given that...assume humans only DID appear roughly 6000 years ago...how did Noah put every single species of animal on an ark...taking into account the animals that have also gone extinct in the years since his large undertaking...and taking OUT water acclimated animals...the numbers are still staggering. But that is only an argument with Christian belief...not religious belief as a whole.
To me, evolution is key because we have so many species so close together they are essentially still the same...but are more adept to certain areas than others OF THEIR SAME SPECIES (by that, I am implying that they could breed...if the animals could not breed...then enough seperation has occured and I would consider them different species).
Humans have selective bred domestic dogs...dating back to the egyptian empire (which seems to have had a greyhound like dog they preferred). Someone can start with 2 dogs...and in the span of mear years...have a new breed that could be considered purebred...
But the true telling of how quickly a organism of any kind can change is not really measured in years and time...its measured in life cycles of the individuals in question. Bacteria...like another poster mentioned...has a MUCH faster reproductive rate than humans, therefore...the genes mutate at a faster rate...for better and worse...the better ones surviving...in the span of years these organisms are fighting back from antibiotics...
I love the illustration that was introduced to me in a book i read by R. Dawkins. Not directly quoted...
If only 1 part of a genetic sequence was changed every generation...for an animal with a reproductive cycle as fast as bacteria, or other single cell organisms....it would change substantially in what we would consider no time at all. Humans by default...will evolve and change slower than those organisms because of how long it takes our species to reproduce. But of course we cant SEE a single celled organism on a daily basis without proper equipment..but we see the results...infections of some kinds becoming more difficult to treat. And new diseases pop up more frequently than we find new multicelled creatures.

jsaunders327
Junior Member (Idle past 5982 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 11-09-2007


Message 92 of 111 (432913)
11-09-2007 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
10-31-2007 9:29 AM


You are quite right and wrong
We'd expect that whenever we develop a dating pattern, the dates will be consistent with natural history and biology.

Either you are not familiar with how inconsistent the dating methods are, or you are blindly disregarding dates that don't match your predictions that were formulated from your evolutionary bias, as is often the case. Will you submit to that statement or do we need to bring up that specific discussion with MANY examples?
we'd expect to find a pattern emerging in the fossil record which showed a nested hierarchy of forms. We'd expect that pattern to be defined it terms of age and location.
Well, only if the geological layers were formed as the uniformatarian theory presumes. But they don’t, do they? They are formed rapidly with certain types of animals being caught, buried, and sorted by several factors including location, density, speed, cunningness and many others. This sounds like something that would happen in a FLOOD scenario (hint, hint).
Let me ask you something else: Do you really believe that fossils form over great periods of time? Ever see a dead animal lay around for a week? Not much left to turn into a fossil, is there? They need to be buried quickly with water/minerals/pressure/etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2007 9:29 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Wounded King, posted 11-09-2007 3:01 AM jsaunders327 has not replied
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 11-09-2007 7:09 PM jsaunders327 has not replied
 Message 102 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 8:02 PM jsaunders327 has not replied

jsaunders327
Junior Member (Idle past 5982 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 11-09-2007


Message 93 of 111 (432917)
11-09-2007 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by bluescat48
10-31-2007 3:03 PM


whereas creation is a belief based on ideas created by men who were ignorant to the basic laws of physics
Interesting that you don’t think evolution is a belief based on ideas created by men. The only other alternative was that the idea was revealed to them supernaturally. Now there’s a problem.
Also interesting that you point out only those who are ignorant of the basic laws of physics believe in and made up the creation story. Does that mean that if you understand the laws of physics that you would naturally believe in evolution? I wonder how that argument would hold up in front of Isaac Newton, who discovered many of the laws? I don’t think it would do so well since he believed in a Literal 6 day creation about 6,000 years ago and that Noah’s' flood was responsible for most of the geology found today. In fact, he wrote extensively against atheism and for creationism and said "We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever."
It seems to me if you are basing your belief of what you stated then you are basing it on misinformation, as is most always the case when someone chooses to believe in evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by bluescat48, posted 10-31-2007 3:03 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 11-09-2007 3:16 AM jsaunders327 has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 94 of 111 (432920)
11-09-2007 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by jsaunders327
11-09-2007 2:09 AM


Re: You are quite right and wrong
Well, only if the geological layers were formed as the uniformatarian theory presumes. But they don’t, do they? They are formed rapidly with certain types of animals being caught, buried, and sorted by several factors including location, density, speed, cunningness and many others. This sounds like something that would happen in a FLOOD scenario (hint, hint).
How about some evidence to support that whopping big assertion?
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jsaunders327, posted 11-09-2007 2:09 AM jsaunders327 has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 95 of 111 (432923)
11-09-2007 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by jsaunders327
11-09-2007 2:34 AM


jsaunders327 writes:
Does that mean that if you understand the laws of physics that you would naturally believe in evolution? I wonder how that argument would hold up in front of Isaac Newton, who discovered many of the laws?
Please don't insult Newton. If he had had access to the information we have today, of course he would have accepted evolution.
This thread is about the reasons for accepting evolution. You should take your "arguments" against it to the appropriate threads.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by jsaunders327, posted 11-09-2007 2:34 AM jsaunders327 has not replied

IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4437 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 96 of 111 (432928)
11-09-2007 3:45 AM


Reasons for accepting evolution:
1. I've a degree in geology, and studying earth history without accepting evolution as the best explanation requires the kind of cognitive dissonance that would give me a migraine for a week.
2. The alternatives are intellectually bankrupt, unscientific, faith-based, or just plain retarded.

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 97 of 111 (432942)
11-09-2007 7:52 AM


Topic Drift Alert
This thread is for people to enumerate their reasons for accepting evolution. Explaining and clarifying these reasons is within the scope of this thread, but debating their validity or lack thereof would cause this thread to fragment into discussions of a dozen different aspects of evolution. Discussing dating methods and deposition and fossils and so forth all in the same thread would be very confusing, which is why we like to keep threads focused on a single topic, or at least a small set of related topics.
If you'd like to debate any of the reasons provided in this thread, simply go to the [forum=-25] forum and propose a new thread.
As an aside, I was a little concerned when I promoted this thread, as obviously the reasons for accepting evolution would likely be very diverse, but I hoped that discussion would be limited to just understanding the reasons. In retrospect that doesn't seem reasonable, because it is the reasons' validity that attracts the most attention.
I'm going to close this thread for a few hours so that members have an opportunity to see this message. If the next time this thread opens the topic drifts again, I think we'll just close it permanently and ask members to propose new threads.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 98 of 111 (432980)
11-09-2007 12:55 PM


Thread Reopened
Please stay on topic. Thanks!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 99 of 111 (432984)
11-09-2007 1:01 PM


Cool. I want to add one.
If there was any case at all against evolution, then creationists wouldn't have to recite stupid lies in order to argue against it. They could tell the truth instead.
I'm sure that they would if they could.

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 100 of 111 (433010)
11-09-2007 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Beretta
11-06-2007 8:25 AM


Yes, we have no curiosity about bananas
Beretta:
All I will get is lots of imaginative stories about how this evolution happened with evolution assumed a priori.
This is, of course, an a priori assumption on your part. You speak of material you refuse to read.
And it is fraught with problems for you.
1. It is self-invalidating. If a priori assumptions themselves make a proposition invalid, your statement is invalid.
2. It is illogical. You can't know a priori assumptions exist in material you don't read.
3. It stands falsified. Basic research would have informed you, for example, that the modern domestic banana results from neither natural selection or special creation.
4. It is self-invalidating. Evolutionary ideas are what you asked to see. You invalidate yourself if you now say you don't want to see any.
It took me 15 seconds to find this lecture material about plant reproduction on Google and only a few minutes to read it. I'm glad I did it. I learned something.
Your mileage may vary. But the best antidote to fear is curiosity.
__________
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 8:25 AM Beretta has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 101 of 111 (433060)
11-09-2007 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by jsaunders327
11-09-2007 2:09 AM


Re: You are quite right and wrong
Welcome to the fray jsaunders327
We'd expect that whenever we develop a dating pattern, the dates will be consistent with natural history and biology.
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on formating questions when in the reply window.
Either you are not familiar with how inconsistent the dating methods are, or you are blindly disregarding dates that don't match your predictions that were formulated from your evolutionary bias, as is often the case. Will you submit to that statement or do we need to bring up that specific discussion with MANY examples?
This thread is about accepting evolution rather than about problems with dating methods. If you really want to discuss dating methods you can either post on one of the existing threads, like Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III), or start a new thread. If you participate on an existing thread you will be expected to (1) stay on the thread topic (ie correlations between dating methods discussed on Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)) and (2) substantiate you claims with actual evidence, siting your sources.
Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.
Well, only if the geological layers were formed as the uniformatarian theory presumes. But they don’t, do they? They are formed rapidly with certain types of animals being caught, buried, and sorted by several factors including location, density, speed, cunningness and many others. This sounds like something that would happen in a FLOOD scenario (hint, hint).
There are also threads about geology and about the flood -- look around and see one that fits you.
Let me ask you something else: Do you really believe that fossils form over great periods of time? Ever see a dead animal lay around for a week? Not much left to turn into a fossil, is there? They need to be buried quickly with water/minerals/pressure/etc.
You can also either find an existing thread of fossil formation or start one.
Message 93
Interesting that you don’t think evolution is a belief based on ideas created by men. The only other alternative was that the idea was revealed to them supernaturally. Now there’s a problem.
Logically false. It can be (is) a fact, and it can be (is) a scientific conclusion based on evaluation of all the facts, and not be either a belief nor supernatural revelation.
be·lief -noun1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
rev·e·la·tion -1.a. The act of revealing or disclosing.
- b. Something revealed, especially a dramatic disclosure of something not previously known or realized.
2. Theology A manifestation of divine will or truth.
3. Revelation Abbr. Rev. or Rv. Bible See Table at Bible.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
It can also be (is) a theory that is not a belief, but a concept being tested for validity, one that can make predictions that can be tested against facts, one that can be falsified.
the·o·ry -1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice
(American Heritage Dictionary)
Also interesting that you point out only those who are ignorant of the basic laws of physics believe in and made up the creation story. Does that mean that if you understand the laws of physics that you would naturally believe in evolution?
Not necessarily, but you would have to be able to understand the basic principles of science.
What bluescat48 was pointing out is that some 4000 years ago people IN GENERAL did not understand the laws of physics. It's basic history.
I wonder how that argument would hold up in front of Isaac Newton, who discovered many of the laws?
Irrelevant, as this is (a) long after the creation story was written, and (b) it is the appeal to authority logical fallacy.
I don’t think it would do so well since he believed in a Literal 6 day creation about 6,000 years ago and that Noah’s' flood was responsible for most of the geology found today. In fact, he wrote extensively against atheism and for creationism and said "We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever."
And seeing as he died before evolution theory was developed he didn't have the opportunity to make that decision eh? He also did not know about relativity or radiation.
On the other side of the coin, are you aware the Leonardo Da Vinci figured out that a single world wide flood was a falsehood?
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html
quote:
How did those shells come to lie at the tops of mountains? Leonardo's answer was remarkably close to the modern one: fossils were once-living organisms that had been buried at a time before the mountains were raised: "it must be presumed that in those places there were sea coasts, where all the shells were thrown up, broken, and divided. . ." Where there is now land, there was once ocean. It was possible, Leonardo thought, that some fossils were buried by floods -- this idea probably came from his observations of the floods of the Arno River and other rivers of north Italy -- but these floods had been repeated, local catastrophes, not a single Great Flood. To Leonardo da Vinci, as to modern paleontologists, fossils indicated the history of the Earth, which extends far beyond human records. As Leonardo himself wrote:
Since things are much more ancient than letters, it is no marvel if, in our day, no records exist of these seas having covered so many countries. . . But sufficient for us is the testimony of things created in the salt waters, and found again in high mountains far from the seas.

Plus we also have Pierre Simon de Laplace's well known quote:
Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
quote:
He himself proved the mechanical stability of the solar system within Newtonian mechanics, thereby removing the need for any regulation by divine intervention. It is this that occasioned his celebrated remark to Napoleon about God: ”Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothse’: I have no need of that hypothesis.
All of which doesn't prove evolution (or any scientific point) of course, it just shows that your argument is logically bad, to be kind.
It seems to me if you are basing your belief of what you stated then you are basing it on misinformation, as is most always the case when someone chooses to believe in evolution.
And yet, curiously, the operation of the universe is totally independent of what you think and understand, it is singularly unimpressed by what seems to you a valid arguement.
Let us return to the topic -- what reasons are there for accepting evolution?
One would be if you could observe the process -- the change in hereditary traits from generation to generation -- in action. You can. You can look at any population of individuals within a species and track changes from generation to generation.
Another would be if you did NOT observe any other process, such as spontaneous generation, in action. You don't.
A third would be if the fossil evidence supported evolution. It does.
A fourth would be if the fossil evidence does not contradict evolution. It doesn't.
A fifth would be if the genetic evidence supports evolution AND matches the fossil evidence. It does.
A sixth would be if the genetic evidence does not contradict evolution OR the fossil evidence. It doesn't.
Creationism does not stand up to those tests, therefore one can only assume creationism is true if one assumes that evidence is false. The problem with this approach is that you can use this to assume any thesis you want, by rejecting whatever evidence invalidates it.
It's not about belief, it is about testing concepts against the facts and finding which ones are valid.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : last line

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jsaunders327, posted 11-09-2007 2:09 AM jsaunders327 has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 102 of 111 (433067)
11-09-2007 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by jsaunders327
11-09-2007 2:09 AM


Re: You are quite right and wrong
Much of what you have said is not advancing the topic, and instead distracting from it. There are threads for those topics. However, I wouldn't want to be thought of as dismissive, so
Ever see a dead animal lay around for a week? Not much left to turn into a fossil, is there?
I will just say this. This is something so easily researched, it goes to show how badly wrong you can be. This seems to be a big premise of yours, that dead animals have mostly degraded within a week, yet it is obviously false. I have seen a week old dead animal. You can look at one here if you have the stomach for such things. You got a simple fact completely wrong, do you honestly think you are assessing the comparatively complex science of evolution and geology based on accurate understanding of the facts? Anyway - I look forward to seeing you participate in some of the other threads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jsaunders327, posted 11-09-2007 2:09 AM jsaunders327 has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 103 of 111 (433130)
11-10-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
11-06-2007 9:26 AM


Re: Tiktaalik
Of course your lies make sense to you.
Of course to call them lies indicates that you imagine that I am trying to deceive you -I could call your conclusions lies except that I know you believe yourself so I wouldn't need to be arrogant about it. I would prefer to say 'your interpretations' knowing that you are not attempting to deceive -you are merely deceived and passing it on. I haven't actually met an evolutionist yet that I feel is knowingly trying to make me believe a lie yet it seems practically every evolutionist on this site prefers to call my interpretations lies as if they really can't believe I could possibly be sincere.
You are telling me lies about what I think
No, I'm telling you that all your beliefs are built on your belief that evolution happened in the first place.
which is why you can present no evidence for this ridiculous falsehood
Well how about dinosaurs -aka dragons -mentioned in history books so no possibility that man did not see them since they drew them, decorated buildings with them etc etc. showing that accordingly,the geologic time scale of 135 -65 million years would render them extinct tens of millions of years before humans existed which is clearly not possible. I would say that the geologic time scale definately doesn't work - but then man invented the geologic time scale according to the assumption that evolution happened.
Which intermediate forms do you claim have gone "into the garbage"?
A whole bunch of former 'icons' have been determined to not be icons after all but rather incorrect interpretations of the evidence based on wishful thinking by evolutionists that believe in evolution and then look for some evidence that fits.Piltdown man was used as an icon for 40 years before it was determined to be a fraud. Neanderthals are men with diseases. Nebraska man was an imaginary transition all built on one tooth and lots of artistic licence. Evolutionists don't ask themselves whether man evolved from apes they ask which apes did they evolve from. That is their starting point, that assumption -if I were a paleontologist and assumed that connection, perhaps I could find a missing link too. My imagination would be sure to assist me.
If you were motivated by a desire for truth, you'd have spent some time trying to find out if any of the nonsense you're reciting was in fact true.
Perhaps I have but for now I'm more worried about you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 9:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-11-2007 10:22 AM Beretta has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 104 of 111 (433135)
11-10-2007 10:07 AM


Topic Drift Alert
I'm going to give this thread one last chance to stay on topic, then I'm going to close it.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 105 of 111 (433301)
11-11-2007 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Beretta
11-10-2007 9:39 AM


The Gish Gallop Limps On ...
... but if you want to pretend that your latest garbage is true, and it will be amusing to watch you try, since some of it is very funny indeed, then you're going to have to find or start a thread in which it's on topic.
In the meantime, I shall content myself by pointing out that with the exception of a couple of weasel half-truths (are you losing your grip?) it's just as false as all the other stuff you've recited, which is why you were incapable of producing a scrap of evidence for your falsehoods.
Bringing me back to the OP: I like evolution because biologists do have evidence. And because they do check that what they're saying is true.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Beretta, posted 11-10-2007 9:39 AM Beretta has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024