The Theory of Evolution

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

Evolution is a theory, not an idea. Just like gravity is a theory. The idea of evolution is based on numerous research from numerous fields of study. Evolution isn't some idea cooked by athiests to disprove God. This is where science and religion differ. Science trys to make sense of our surroundings using facts, making hypthosis, and then testing them, while religion relies on faith, not facts or observations. Science itself wouldn't allow a theory to rise that hasn't been tested and widely recognized by the scientific community as true. Of course there are arguements against evolution and i'm sure there are arguements for gravity and aspects of thermodynamics. Cottons makes all these claims how evolution is wrong, however i think half of it bullshit cottons. I'm not trying to insult you or anything, but science wouldn't allow evolution to be a theory without significant proof. Evolution doesnt disprove God or anything. God could have started the process of evolution and gravity to keep a balance in the universe. It in my opinion that God doesn't exist, however I don't use evolution to prove that. Cottons i will admit there are some aspects of evolution that are hard to swallow, but recently the study of genetics has shown how similar we are to various of organisms. Perhaps after thousands of years of faith based religions, creationists are afraif they might be wrong?

[IGotTheCottons]

Here's the problem though... You can observe gravity happening. You can't observe things changing species. Even if it takes billions of years... Where's the ones that are almost there now? Where's today's in-between animals? Or has nature decided it's had enough and no longer wishes to change things?

"Religion" as you say (because most evolutionists like to group all religion together) is not always the way you guys think it is. We observe our surroundings just as "science" does. We take into account nature, the different species, adaptation (not to be confused with evolution), physics, etc... We just choose to believe that the different species were created all at once, the earth didn't take billions of years to form, and that God created the laws of nature. You can't prove that it didn't happen, and there is quite a lack of hard scientific evidence that supports this theory of evolution - so yeah... whatever.

There are numerous scientists who believe in creation and completely deny evolution. How can they do this? This is pretty simple because Evolution is nothing more than secular humanism disguised as science. Zylark once told me that you'd have to disregard virtually every aspect of science if evolution were thrown out - and that simply is not true.

Show me some solid scientific evidence that this actually has taken place. I think I've shown, pretty fairly, some of the major problems evolution has, and a lot of the questions it can't answer.

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

When I say religion I mean those whose beliefs are based on faith.

You say we should take the bible literally, but how does noah's ark save all the species of animals in the world, including all insects? There is no possible way you can take the bible literally when it explains the global flood without coming up with some faith based explanation.

I have proven to you that the earth is indeed not 10,000 years old. Just think of how many light years we are away from the closet star or the farthest known. So how can you claim to take the bible literally?

Why do we have to believe that some God created the world? What makes you so right? Why is it such a threat that tmight be an alternative way the world was created and more specifically how there is so much diversity.

Evidence? Sarcopterygii and Archaeopteryx. These are two transitional fossils that showed they had the ability to enter a new environment. Sarcopterygii was a fish that is theorized to have been one of the first animals to come upon land. The fish has a foreman much like an amphibians which is theorized to be the first terrestrial organisms. Also, this type of fish is a lungfish, which has a lung. These adaptions would have allowed the first terrestrials to reach land. Just look at fossisls and bones and look at the similarities.

Show me a credible non-creationist, un bias article that talks about your arguement about the geologic strata or whatever. You give a lot of evidence against evolution and i think most of it is bullshit. Give credible nonbias links.

Evidence that evolution has taken place? Look at mammals. We have only been around for a small part of the time. Is it coincidence that evolution is about order and hierachry? Do you not see the order and hierarchy of evolution? Mammals are the bested adapted to our environments. We have hair and glands which allow us to control our body temperatures, which is a lot of better than any other nonmammal organism. Mammal's neopallium [ which is a part of the brain that deals with learning] is enlarged. What seperates humans from other mammals is basically our cerbal cortex which has only recently [in the past 10 millions years] has developed. Whether God's hand is used to start evolution is debatable.

[Opivy]

Okay let me give a try at this.

Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species started the modern evolutionary movement which now is thought to have occured in six phases. Cosmic evolution, Chemical evolution, Stellar and planetary evolution, Organic evolution, Macro evolution, and finally Micro evolution. Only the last one has ever been observed, the other five are simply assumed. When I say assumed I'm not trying to say someone pulled them out of their ass, but there is little backing in these claims and have never been seen to happen.

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

Evidence? Sarcopterygii and Archaeopteryx. These are two transitional fossils that showed they had the ability to enter a new environment. Sarcopterygii was a fish that is theorized to have been one of the first animals to come upon land. The fish has a foreman much like an amphibians which is theorized to be the first terrestrial organisms. Also, this type of fish is a lungfish, which has a lung. These adaptions would have allowed the first terrestrials to reach land. Just look at fossisls and bones and look at the similarities.

Can you explain to me why these are theorized to be transitional fossils please.

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

Evidence that evolution has taken place? Look at mammals. We have only been around for a small part of the time. Is it coincidence that evolution is about order and hierachry? Do you not see the order and hierarchy of evolution? Mammals are the bested adapted to our environments. We have hair and glands which allow us to control our body temperatures, which is a lot of better than any other nonmammal organism. Mammal's neopallium [ which is a part of the brain that deals with learning] is enlarged. What seperates humans from other mammals is basically our cerbal cortex which has only recently [in the past 10 millions years] has developed. Whether God's hand is used to start evolution is debatable.

Okay, I looked at mammals. Is this the evidence pointint towards evolution? Is this the evidence that leads us to believe that we have only been around for a small part of the time? Mammals? How does that prove anything?

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConfuseD

I have proven to you that the earth is indeed not 10,000 years old. Just think of how many light years we are away from the closet star or the farthest known. So how can you claim to take the bible literally?

Well actually, the sun isn't THAT far away.

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

haha i wasnt talking about the sun but thanks for pointing it out

I dont recall it stating those 6 phases. I didn't believe that Darwin knew too much about the cosmos. Please post a site where can I read about that Opivy.

How are those theorized to be transitional fossils? Well the Sarcopterygii has both fish and amphibian like characteristics and Archaeopteryx has reptile and bird like characteristics. Other than that I'd be just repeating myself.

Mammals arent the only example, of course. Just look at at a timeline of the different animals. So far the hasn't been any mammals before reptiles, no reptiles before amphibians, no amphibians before fish, no multicellular organisms before unicellular organisms. You see a hierarchy going on? This is based on current records and observations.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

When I say religion I mean those whose beliefs are based on faith.

Such as evolution... Evolution takes faith regardless of whether or not you want to admit it. You have to trust in a theory that can never be 100% proven. Just as I have to trust that God miraculously provided a sanctuary within Noah's ark.

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

You say we should take the bible literally, but how does noah's ark save all the species of animals in the world, including all insects? There is no possible way you can take the bible literally when it explains the global flood without coming up with some faith based explanation.

Right, and evolution takes just as much faith. When I say to take the Bible literally, what I mean is what the Bible says - that's what it means. None of that "everything is a metaphore" crap.

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

I have proven to you that the earth is indeed not 10,000 years old. Just think of how many light years we are away from the closet star or the farthest known. So how can you claim to take the bible literally?

You have proven no such thing. You simply refused to accept my answer and dismissed my verses as "arbitrary." But if you go by a literal interpretation, then God literally stretched out the heavens. I can look up those verses again and give you the literal meaning of the Hebrew or Greek words used if you wish. This way you can't just pass it off as arbitrary...

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

Why do we have to believe that some God created the world? What makes you so right? Why is it such a threat that tmight be an alternative way the world was created and more specifically how there is so much diversity.

And why did we have to occur by accident over billions of years? I did pleanty of research as I, myself, used to believe in evolution at one point. Then I decided to not be so close-minded and give the other side a chance. I made my decision based on research I've done.

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

Evidence? Sarcopterygii and Archaeopteryx. These are two transitional fossils that showed they had the ability to enter a new environment. Sarcopterygii was a fish that is theorized to have been one of the first animals to come upon land. The fish has a foreman much like an amphibians which is theorized to be the first terrestrial organisms. Also, this type of fish is a lungfish, which has a lung. These adaptions would have allowed the first terrestrials to reach land. Just look at fossisls and bones and look at the similarities.

So why is it that only 1 type of fish has a lung? And this is so that the fish can move from one body of water to another... Not so it can make a permenant home on land. Archaeoptreryx (I think this was the fossil, but I could be wrong) was admitted by the one who discovered it, to be 100% BIRD.

Many animals have similar features. I attribute this to an intelligent creator who knew that many animals were going to need similar features in order to survive.

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

Show me a credible non-creationist, un bias article that talks about your arguement about the geologic strata or whatever. You give a lot of evidence against evolution and i think most of it is bullshit. Give credible nonbias links.

Well, I believe the same thing about you. Why don't you try giving me some non-biased links that prove evolution. I gaurantee you'll be quite hard pressed to find one as everyone is biased towards this topic. They believe one way or the other, and whichever way they believe will affect their arguments.

Most of my claims on the geologic strata are common sense. It's layered, fossils are mostly found in groups, and there's rocks that aren't being made anymore that span entire continents. So... where's my bias in that? I've given solid arguments against evolution, and the only reason you think they're bull-shit is because evolution/uniformitarianism CAN'T explain them away.

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

Evidence that evolution has taken place? Look at mammals. We have only been around for a small part of the time. Is it coincidence that evolution is about order and hierachry? Do you not see the order and hierarchy of evolution? Mammals are the bested adapted to our environments. We have hair and glands which allow us to control our body temperatures, which is a lot of better than any other nonmammal organism. Mammal's neopallium [ which is a part of the brain that deals with learning] is enlarged. What seperates humans from other mammals is basically our cerbal cortex which has only recently [in the past 10 millions years] has developed. Whether God's hand is used to start evolution is debatable.

Explain then the evolution of language, abstract thought, and our ability to pass on knowledge to further generations... These all separate us from animals. God designed us for our enviornments (animals included)... Do you think that a series of lucky accidents (evolution) could create such a perfectly balanced ecosystem? Honestly? Because, to me, that is pleanty of proof of an intelligent creator.

Sorry man... But you've proven nothing, and you've given no solid arguments that point toward your side.

[Opivy]

Truthfully I dont know anything about the fish you mention. I'll try to look up some info on it. As for the Archaeopteryx, is not considered a 'missing link' and is not shown to prove evolution anymore. I think most people have agreed that its 100% bird but I have read some stuff about people studying it to find the origin of birds.

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

Mammals arent the only example, of course. Just look at at a timeline of the different animals. So far the hasn't been any mammals before reptiles, no reptiles before amphibians, no amphibians before fish, no multicellular organisms before unicellular organisms. You see a hierarchy going on? This is based on current records and observations.

This time line is how evolution assumes the animals time on earth would have been. It also fits well with the geologic findings in the layers of the earth. (Further down, the older) But this could also have been explained by a flood. So who is to say that these creatures all existed at different time periods? There is definately no overwhelming evidence of it. Just a theory still.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by Opivy

This time line is how evolution assumes the animals time on earth would have been. It also fits well with the geologic findings in the layers of the earth. (Further down, the older) But this could also have been explained by a flood. So who is to say that these creatures all existed at different time periods? There is definately no overwhelming evidence of it. Just a theory still.

EXACTLY! That's why I've been trying to say... You put it better than me though.

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

God stretched froth the heavens and so on.... how does that prove that the earth is 10,000 years old. You say I am quick to dismiss u, you are equally quick to dismiss me. I gave you plenty examples of why the earth can't be 10,000 years old and u dismissed every single one of them.

Actually cottons, Sarcopterygii is a subclass of fishes. So there are numerious species of lungfish. These fish have lungs and forearms so they can obviously move out of the water. These traits would have enabled to make the move to become terrestrials. Archaeoptreryx is the first "true" bird but shares characteristics with reptiles and birds.

How is the product of evolution an accident? Species are increasingly becoming more specialized. That shows that there is some order and not just some accident. The survival of the fittest.

Since you Cottons know everything about why evolution is incorrect, then why is it called the Theory of Evolution? Why would science allow such an incorrect theory to exist. Why would scientist disregard your arguement about the geologic strata? Did you somehow stumble on to something that no other geologists knows or is your arguement bullshit? If what you claim is true then how can evolution and the 4 billion year old earth theory still be claimed to be true. Why cant you give articles or links to support your claim about the geologic strata? I don't post any links b/c the information I give come from notes from my biology clases. I am no position to argue geology b/c i have no real knowledge of it.

You said "I attribute this to an intelligent creator who knew that many animals were going to need similar features in order to survive." This process is evolution!!!!! An intelligent creator could have created the process of evolution so animals can survive and adapt to different environments.

U ask me to explain how we have such advance thought processes, but I already did. Mammals have an enlarged neopallium and the cerbal cortex is theorized to be the most recent tothe brain. The cerebal cortex is responsible for our most advance thought and problem solving processes.

The basis of evolution is on natural selection which would eliminate traits that weren't superior. Think about it, if the dinosaurs became extinct due to a meteor then how would we or any other animals be here? The meteor would cause dust block sunlight and drop the overall temperature of the earth. Plants would die and reptiles would have hard time surviving because they are cold blooded. Now it theorized that mammals did exist during the time of dinosaurs but were far less in numbers. Now mammals are warm-blooded and so natrually they would survive and reproduce during this time, while reptiles would have a hard time surviving. The smaller reptiles would survive b/c they wouldnt require as much food and could more easily burrow to survive the colder temperatures. This would explain why mammals have dominated since the time of the reptiles and why reptiles aren't nearley as large.

All this could due to an intelligent creator. I don't believe God did it, but you nor I can prove otherwise.

[Opivy]

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

Actually cottons, Sarcopterygii is a subclass of fishes. So there are numerious species of lungfish. These fish have lungs and forearms so they can obviously move out of the water. These traits would have enabled to make the move to become terrestrials. Archaeoptreryx is the first "true" bird but shares characteristics with reptiles and birds.

Okay, this fish had lungs and forearms to live a terrestrial life. What does this prove? How many fossils of these are found? Without any observational or genetic evidence who is to say this fossil organism left any offspring? Maybe it was a creature that didn't last long on earth.

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

Since you Cottons know everything about why evolution is incorrect, then why is it called the Theory of Evolution? Why would science allow such an incorrect theory to exist. Why would scientist disregard your arguement about the geologic strata? Did you somehow stumble on to something that no other geologists knows or is your arguement bullshit? If what you claim is true then how can evolution and the 4 billion year old earth theory still be claimed to be true. Why cant you give articles or links to support your claim about the geologic strata? I don't post any links b/c the information I give come from notes from my biology clases. I am no position to argue geology b/c i have no real knowledge of it.

Dont use science as your defense. Just because science lets the theory exist doesnt mean anything. Ever see John Edwards on TV? Just an example.

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

Acutally Opivy, the organism left a lot of offspring because there are till lungfish to date. They are very small in number and were thought to be extinct. I believe only a few of these fossils have been found... there's a lot of earth and water to explore.

My whole point was that there is tons of evidence for evolution even though according to cottons there isnt much hard evidence. Evolution wouldnt become a theory unless there was significant evidence for it. I'm not using science as my defense, I'm just using to show how cotton is wrong to assume there isn't any hard evidence for evolution. And I didn't see John Edwards and tv so i dont follow your example.

BTW Opivy you havent expanded on your claim that darwin had 6 phases of evolution? What happened to that?

[Opivy]

Read it again. I never claimed Darwin came up with the 6 phases, I said that Darwins work The Origin of the Species started the modern evolutionary movement.


Okay, now onto the hard evidence. There isn't any. If you believe that there is some show me it

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

what do u mean by hard evidence? because i've given plenty evidence realted to fossils and biology. other than that i wouldnt be able to argue for or against it.

u as well as cottons doesn't believe there is any strong evidence supporting evolution. perhaps you should look into some credible research because i cant really give u anymore evidence than i already have.

You say that evolution doesnt answer a lot of questions, but what about creationism? The bible doesnt explain how we have over 6 billion people currently living on the earth that came from adam and eve. Cottons say the bible is to understand literally so why arent we all inbred? It doesn't explain the universe at all b/c the writers didnt even know the earth resolves around the sun. So Cottons how can you argue with scripture when the writers didn't even know that we are part of the solar system which is in the milky way galaxy, which is billions upon billions in diameter. It doesn't explain all the diversity that is found in this world. Instead it makes you assume that noah fit all the animals into a boat and that they all magically came to noah b/c God waved his fairy wand. The bible is supposed to be the word of God but yet is bias toward certain gospels. Why is that? Because man not God wrote the bible and man decided the order of the gospels and what gospels to include or not include. If faith alone can cause salvation then what about tribes around the world who have had no contact with the outside? They are already predestined to go to hell since they will never know Christianity and God, since he is supposedly all knowing, knows this and does nothing about it. There are more questions that havent been answered by creationists and religion in general.

All the Theory of Evolution is trying to do is explain the amount of diversity. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life started but the process that creates diversity.

[Opivy]

You have given no evidence for evolution.

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

I already have in earlier posts why would i repeat myself? And like i said earlier, im a biology major, so i dont really know much about geology or morphology. Morphology is what darwin used to come up with his theory.

Of course that evidence is only a small amount. If you want more specific evidence then look it up for yourself cuz i dont feel like doing it or read the thread "Why Evolution is Wrong," more specifically read Zylark's post.