Do you support evolution? (before, mission, attend, purpose)

[happytown]

Originally Posted by happytown

Well...Obviously this will be an endless arguement. Evolution enables even the tiniest of organisms to adapt and change course throughout time. But sometimes these organisms are unable to adapt and change due to human intervention. Destruction of habitats by ruthless humans like pubic hair are even of concern. People!! We are about to lose a very close friend due to bikini wax!
Dutch natural history museum unable to locate elusive crab louse for its collection - International Herald Tribune

New news we have found the crab! What was the topic again....Evolution. Oh, ya get out your 6th grade science books let me explai....

[mams1559]

Originally Posted by ian6479

Mams1559, you are obviously entitled to your beliefs, but evolution is undeniable. Why do you fight it so hard?

Why? Because I believe it to be a lie, that's why. It's not undeniable, I deny it every day . IMHO, most of the scientific community has embraced the ToE because they believe in their minds it can easily and comfortably dismiss God. Without God, there's no one they have to answer to for their lives. They're not accountable to their creator because they believe the ToE shows no creator was necessary. Those that combine the ToE with the Bible are, IMO, just fooling themselves or don't fully comprehend the implications trying to combine the two have on the word of God or the very existence of God.

Originally Posted by ian6479

The complex body of principles that explain evolutionary change is a theory in the same sense as "quantum theory" in physics or "atomic theory" in chemistry: it has been developed from evidence, tested, and refined, and it accounts for literally thousands of observations made throughout the entirety of biological science and paleontology.

You cannot test evolution because no one has ever witnessed evolution take place. You cannot reproduce evolution in a lab.

Originally Posted by ian6479

It has withstood innumerable tests and attempts to disprove it, but it is still being refined, modified in the light of new knowledge, and extended to account for newly discovered phenomena.

It's being redefined because it's always wrong. Someone makes a hypothesis based on current evolutionary thinking and when the hypothesis doesn't result because a fossil disputes their idea or lab experiments show it couldn't have possibly happened as origninally proposed, it's not the evolutionary thought that's wrong, heaven forbid. They can't abandon evolution, so let's just modify the current thought to correspond to what has actually been observed or tested as taking place.

Originally Posted by ian6479

Evolution is a fact. All but the most trivial facts begin as untested hypotheses—such as the hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun. They acquire "facthood" as more and more evidence accrues in their favor, and as they withstand attempts to refute them. The evidence and attempt at refutation may take many forms besides simple observations; indeed, the most powerful evidence is not mere observations, but conformity to predictions that the hypothesis makes about what we should see if the hypothesis is true or false. We do not observe the earth making a circuit around the sun; we accept this hypothesis because of the numerous, verified astronomical observations—and more recently observations from spacecraft—that conform to the predictions of the hypothesis.

Biologists accept as fact that all organisms, living and extinct, have descended, with innumerable changes, from one or at most a few original forms of life. For Darwin in 1859, this was a hypothesis, for which he provided abundant evidence from comparative anatomy, embryology, behavior, agriculture, paleontology, and the geographic distributions of organisms. Since that time, all of the many thousands of observations in each of these areas have supported Darwin's core hypothesis. To these observations has been added copious evidence that Darwin could hardly have dreamed of, especially from paleontology and molecular biology. A century's accumulation of such evidence establishes descent, with modification, from common ancestors as a fact of science. How we explain this fact—what the principles and causes of it may be—is the theory of evolutionary process, parts of which are subject to various amounts of scientific debate, modification, and extension.

No scientific hypothesis other than common descent with modification can account for and make predictions about the unity, diversity, and properties of living organisms. No other hypothesis of the origin of biological diversity is supported by such overwhelming evidence, and no competing hypothesis spawns such richness of scientific study and has as many implications for the biological sciences and their applications to societal needs.

Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a framework of thought to explain the hypothesis of how every single living organism and creature on this planet came to be from a single common ancestor. All other rational explanations are not considered valid if they do not fall in line with the already accepted 'truth' of evolution. Evolution is a term whose meaning changes depending on the discussion you're involved in. The word 'evolution' is erroneously used synonomyously with terms or phrases like natural selection or genetic drift or adaptation or mutation. Evolutionists like to claim simultaneously that these observable and repeatable functions both are evolution and proof of evolution. It's my opinon they are neither. They are what they are.

There are PhD biologists and geneticists who do not buy into evolution. Their work is not affected. For example, people claim you must embrace evolution in order to create new medicines because of the 'rapid evolution' of germs, bacteria, viruses, etc. No, all you need to do is figure out how the genetic mutation of those organisms is defeating the current medicines so a new medicine can be developed to counter the mutation. Accepting that germ is our ancestral heritage is not necessary.

Nothing from such scientific endeavor will suddenly show how a single cell came to be organized from non-living chemicals or how that single cell gained enough genetic information to replicate itself or even more astounding how it gained enough genetic information to begin its upward climb toward any other organism. The ToE in my humble opinion is a fraud and a sham.

[MacAttack_]

Originally Posted by mams1559

Why? Because I believe it to be a lie, that's why. It's not undeniable, I deny it every day . IMHO, most of the scientific community has embraced the ToE because they believe in their minds it can easily and comfortably dismiss God.

uh, no. The theory of evolution is quite compatible with a creator, whether it is your god or some other.

Without God, there's no one they have to answer to for their lives.

Answer for what? And I can think of plenty of people I answer to for my life. My parents, my loved ones, the government, and myself.

They're not accountable to their creator because they believe the ToE shows no creator was necessary.

Actually, it shows no such thing. It may contradict with certain versions of creation, but it does not preclude that a creator of some sort could have been involved.

As a certain sleuth once stated - "Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true."

Unfortunately, most of the myths in the Bible are in the "impossible" category.

Those that combine the ToE with the Bible are, IMO, just fooling themselves or don't fully comprehend the implications trying to combine the two have on the word of God or the very existence of God.

When one attempts to combine reality with elements of a myth, reality wins.
Period.

I won't touch on the points in the rest of your post since they've been addressed and debunked many times over here.

[Tricky D]

"Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true."

He also stated: 'There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.'
Luckily the facts in evolution aren't obvious.

[MacAttack_]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

He also stated: 'There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.'

Very true, so it's no surprise then that "obvious facts" are the bread and butter of creationists and creation science.

Luckily the facts in evolution aren't obvious.

Evolution is in fact, a proven fact to those who truly know what facts are.

[Tricky D]

Evolution is in fact, a proven fact to those who truly know what facts are.

I wasn't disagreeing with you since he would say: You see, but you do not observe.
I believe that the main difference between a religious individual and a scientific individual is that the religious only rely on what they see, while the scientific only rely on what they observe.

Then you have people like me to which he would say: We balance probabilities and choose the most likely. It is the scientific use of the imagination.
Although I admit that I put far more faith in my imagination than in probabilities.

[ParkTwain]

This discussion is a great example of the notion of the social dimension of 'facticity'. In other words, something isn't a 'fact' until which (experts, etc.) or how many (peer pressure) folks agree that it's true?

Scientists state that evolution is a fact. Understand what is the basis for that. Scientists are not journalists or poll-takers. Learn about types of verification, tools for measuring key physical quantities, geologic time.

[idrees]

Originally Posted by F355

Do you believe in the theory and general principles behind the theory of evolution?

yes i believe.

[Seaharbour]

I choose the second one, cause not everything adds up in evolution imo.

[doss1]

Forgive me, I did not read this thread...24 pages long! But, as a Christian, I see no problem with evolution. As a matter of fact, such fine-tuning of evolution is a strong pillar for the existance of God.