Evolution is the best explination for the evolution of man. Discuss. (quote, God)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A thread by popular demand to allow the 'theory' thread to remain on topic.
My position is it is inarguable to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of biology, genetics, and the tennants of evolution, as well as understanding basic geologic process and fossil examination that evolution remains a sound and almost unquestionable explination for how life has come to take its many forms on this planet.
A thread by popular demand to allow the 'theory' thread to remain on topic.
My position is it is inarguable to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of biology, genetics, and the tennants of evolution, as well as understanding basic geologic process and fossil examination that evolution remains a sound and almost unquestionable explination for how life has come to take its many forms on this planet.
As much as I believe in the theory of evolution, I don't think anything should ever be unquestionable. If we stop questioning, we stop learning. Question everything! I think that's one of the problems a lot of believers have -- they don't question, they just accept what they've been told and don't really think about it.
I'm not saying that it is unquestionable, I said, almost unquestionable, and I said that it's inarguable to a scientiest that it's almost unquestionable, not that it is either.
Lol.
I could also counterplay and say that to a literalist theist, creationalism is almost unquestionably the best explination for life on earth in its many forms. That wasn't my point. IT was just to move posts out of the 'theory' thread and into this one if people have such an appetite to talk about evolution.
My position is it is inarguable to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of biology, genetics, and the tennants of evolution, as well as understanding basic geologic process and fossil examination that evolution remains a sound and almost unquestionable explination for how life has come to take its many forms on this planet.
I agree, especially when those in opposition to evolution are of the young-earth variety. I find it hard to believe that anyone with any understanding of science, and any appreciation of logic, can say such things.
I don't think that evolution explains everything, and I suspect that there will still be a few radical revisions to the theory (especially if/when we address the "hard problem" of consciousness), but the FACTS of evolution are so clear and well-documented that it is nothing but foolishness to say that it doesn't occur.
A thread by popular demand to allow the 'theory' thread to remain on topic.
My position is it is inarguable to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of biology, genetics, and the tennants of evolution, as well as understanding basic geologic process and fossil examination that evolution remains a sound and almost unquestionable explination for how life has come to take its many forms on this planet.
I agree, sorta, all topics are up for discussion. a good idea encourages questions, but.....ignorance will argue more loudly than we. They emote more than think.
I don't think it's necessarily ignorance. A lot of these people are fully aware of the facts.
The problem is, those arguing against evolution tend to rely on "well this piece doesn't quite fit, thus God did it" when that's a huge leap of logic to make and once again relies on the premis that an absense of evidence for one thing is a huge amount of evidence for somethign else, that by definition there is no evidence for.
One of the curious byproducts of this ongoing "debate" (I use the term very loosely because one side is hardly well-versed on the topic) is this one:
Creationists often confuse the rationalist's defense of Evolution as an unerring "belief" in the infallibility of the theory.
Big mistake. They see science as subject to change (which it is), and therefore they think it gives them the right to challenge scientific theory with little more than a pet belief in their view of the world.
The defense of evolution is not a "belief" in evolution. It is instead a byproduct of the scientific method. Evolution stands as a structure in science until ample evidence is put forth that the Theory is in need of revision. And of course it will be revised. Every theory is.
Creationists would like to think that they have THE alternative "theory." But they obviously don't. It doesn't even remotely rise to the level of theory. But all they see is an attack on their belief when their "theory" is rejected. They confuse belief in a preconceived notion with a hypothesis, let alone a theory.
I don't think it's necessarily ignorance. A lot of these people are fully aware of the facts.
The problem is, those arguing against evolution tend to rely on "well this piece doesn't quite fit, thus God did it" when that's a huge leap of logic to make and once again relies on the premis that an absense of evidence for one thing is a huge amount of evidence for somethign else, that by definition there is no evidence for.
I've noticed this as well. They start out accepting the idea of scientific evidence, but when evidence turns against them, they say "Well, God just did it this way."
EXAMPLE: In some arguments I point out some simple facts. Here is how it typically goes:
Me: We can measure the speed of light, and we can determine the distance to stars. If the universe was created 7,000 years ago, then the light from distant stars could not have reached earth yet.
YEC: Scientist's are wrong about the distances to stars.
Me: Ok, we can count stars, and we also know a lot about gravity. If you try to pack all of the stars in the universe into a sphere 7000 light years in diameter, then the universe will quickly collapse.
YEC: If the stars really are so far away, then God must have made the universe so that it appears old. He put the photons from distant stars already on their way when the universe was created.
This same basic pattern applies to all creation/evolution arguments.
So much for the value of empirical evidence, I guess.
Oh yeah?! Well, if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
