Quote:
Originally Posted by bkadoctaj
It's a theory, correct? We've never seen macroevolution, have we? There are difficult things in evolution theory that don't fit well with all people. I'm not saying it does certainly represent that desire, but I'm suggesting that subconsciousness is what drives us.
Oh Freud...
|
Evolution is a fact and a theory, yes.
No, we have not seen it occur, well, actually, we are seeing it occur. Every single day. Every life form we see is in transition from one state to the next. Of course, I digress. We have not seen it occur in the way you are meaning, but that does not mean there is no evidence to suggest it occurs.
Click Here. I have not seen an atom with my naked eye, should I then say atoms do not exist?
Evolution may indeed not fit well to some people. That, however, does not mean evolution is not fact, nor does it make the evidence go away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyhalf87
creationism and intelligent design are not necessarily the same thing, creationism is that God just created everything, intelligent design allows for the possibility of evolution by God's hand.
|
No, ID does not allow for that possibility.
Watch the following, in it you will see how ID proponents took a creationism text book and changed every mention of the word creationism to Intelligent Design. So, quite frankly, ID is simply the new name for creationism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyhalf87
i never claimed it was scientific theory, i just said it was a theory.
|
Well, if it is not a scientific theory, then what you are calling it is an hypothesis, really. In terms of science. Why are you not claiming it as a scientific theory when the proponents of Intelligent Design do. I mean... That is why people want it taught in science class, right? If it is not a scientific theory and does not pretend to be, why should it be taught in science class, eh? Why should be it given equal weight? Remember, a scientific theory does not mean "Something I came up with to explain something with no real good reason other then it sounds pretty cool."
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyhalf87
if you dont know what caused the big bang, and i dont know what caused God to exist, arent we both placing faith in the theories we believe?
|
No. It comes back to my murderer example above. According to that logic, since I do not know why the killer murdered someone, I place faith in the fact he did? I certainly know he killed someone, but apparently I do not because I do not know why. Knowing the why, as I said, would be nice, but it is not necessary to knowing something happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyhalf87
life works too perfectly, the world takes care of itself too well to be an accident.
|
So, all the massive extinction events were simply perfect? The fact that life has been wiped out time and again is perfect design? Please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyhalf87
did a tree crawl out of a pool of sludge and plant itself at the same time as an oxygen inhaling, carbon dioxide exhaling animal so that they could both breathe? thats one "proof" of creationism in my mind
|
No, a tree did not crawl out of a pool of sludge. No one is suggesting it did. Oxygen was around before trees... Can you guess where a good amount of the worlds oxygen comes from? If you guessed the oceans of the world, you would be correct. Life evolved, and the environment shaped that evolution. So, it should be obvious that life forms would evolve to use the environment around them. Bears eat berries and meat, cows eat grass... This is not a sign of a creator, because, how would you expect it to look if we were not created? We'd be breathing fairy dust and eating moon rocks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyhalf87
im not saying dont teach the theory of evolution in schools or whatever, im saying teach it as just that- a theory. its not proven. its not the LAW of evolution. maybe teach it alongside a few other theories, creationism included.
|
Again, you completely failed to see what I said, you did not bother to click on the provided links (I will assume) and simply came out with this little gem. Evolution is fact. Your use of the term "law of evolution" also shows a misunderstanding of science... Since you will not go to the links I post that explain what you're asking, I will bring them to you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stephen J. Gould
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyhalf87
an intermediate stage doesnt mean anything. are blacks, whites, asians, or any other ethnicity on a different stage of the evolutionary process? i mean thats what evolution is right? very slight random mutations over thousands, millions, even billions of years right?
|
We are all the same species, yet we evolve based upon many factors, our environment being one of them. We are all in transition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyhalf87
if there is a creator, and he designs humans with two eyes, ears, a nose and a mouth, thats because He thought it was a good design, so wouldnt it stand to reason that he would create similar animals (such as other primates) based off of the same basic design as well as create different ones to create a complete ecosystem?
|
The point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyhalf87
im not in this discussion with a closed mind, i enjoy discussing my beliefs because thats how i learn more about them and what i think about them. thanks for taking the time to respond to that
|
Click the links and read, read, read.
EDIT: I have whored this video around a lot, but I believe it bears yet another posting.