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.
I concur. I see that the earth is round so yes I believe science is right about that even though we walk on flat surfaces.
I will believe in evolution if I see something evolve from something. No not the freaking viruses. Something as complex as seeing a fish LITERALLY learn to walk.
But if science will only give me a BS reason that it will take billions of years for it to happen then I will prefer believing I was created by a higher being.
Have you ever seen a person created by a higher being? If not, why are you placing the burden on science that you obviously will not impose on your own beliefs? When you do and can show that to me, I will reconsider my position that science has proven evolution.
Evolution is both a fact (as in it is observed to happen both in the wild and in the lab) and a theory (as in a model used to explain how this fact happens), so I'm not sure what sort of distinction you're trying to make here.
Sorry maybe I wasn't clear and some very good remarks here btw.
When I read the lit of evolution I don't think I'm off the mark that most evolutionary biologists believe evolution is a fact NOT a theory anymore. Ernest Mayr, one of the most eminent scientists of evolution, agrees with this. So I'm just suggesting that is it possible that there is SOME probability that evidence accrues to challenge what has now been discovered in our origins? Say is 'probability' zero? Really is Darwin's 'one long arguemnt' a done deal now here in the 21st in the matter of scientific investigation?
Sorry maybe I wasn't clear and some very good remarks here btw.
When I read the lit of evolution I don't think I'm off the mark that most evolutionary biologists believe evolution is a fact NOT a theory anymore. Ernest Mayr, one of the most eminent scientists of evolution, agrees with this. So I'm just suggesting that is it possible that there is SOME probability that evidence accrues to challenge what has now been discovered in our origins? Say is 'probability' zero? Really is Darwin's 'one long argument' a done deal now here in the 21st in the matter of scientific investigation?
All right, we'll say it again, and not for the last time, I guess. 'The 'Theory' of evolution is used in the sense of an explanatory mechanism. not in the sense of an hypothesis that requires proof.
The mechanism of natural selection through random mutation is already accepted as a fact by Creationists (as micro - evolution).
The geological and fossil evidence argues overwhelmingly and totally that this process can be traced back to simple cell colonies in Pre - cambrian formations and developed over millions of years.
That evidence is a fact, the interpretation of it (Creationists don't deny the fact, just the interpretation) all indicates an evolutionary process and none of it really supports creation.
You can choose to follow the experimental path through the observable world that leads to a converging proof of evolution and the big bang in every scientific discipline and come to an understanding of it.... You can do the work yourself, you can see the research, you can follow the reasoning, you can challenge and question it.
But how can I. I cannot repeat the Big Bang in a laboratory, nor can I repeat evolution in a laboratory. By Evolution I mean Macro, not Micro. Unless I can go back to the very begining, I cannot be sure that this is exactly how things happen. I am not trying to be difficult but how does one extrapolate back millions or billions of years and say that conditions were the same then as now or as "scientists state to make these extrapolations fact. You say "But you can look at a jet airliner and know how it came about or a bridge. True there is documentation of bridges and airliners being built. And witnesses. Where are the witnesses to creation? To other creatures "evolving" to become man? Yes, I know, we have DNA similarities and carbon 14 dating but do we have the "real thing". And yet if you question today's scientific community you are labelled stupid, ignorant, a religious fanatic, uneducated. At the very best you are sneered, ridiculed and laughed at. At the worst you are shunned and denied funds, studies etc. Ridicule is not part of the scientific process. I, for one, can believe in both. The existence of an intelligent, all-present, all-knowledgeable creator as well as the fundamental theories of science, albeit not today's science that emphatically states "God does not exist and never did, if you believe in science, you cannot believe in the existence of God". So scientists are now telling us that they have the answeres to everything and that everything that exists can be/is explained by them. Science is becoming the new "religion". Personally I believe that neither "science" nor "religion" are seeing the whole true picture and that someday, hopefully, we all may see that all of us weren't entirely "on target".
Last edited by DauntlessDan; 03-26-2014 at 10:15 AM..
You can choose to follow the experimental path through the observable world that leads to a converging proof of evolution and the big bang in every scientific discipline and come to an understanding of it.... You can do the work yourself, you can see the research, you can follow the reasoning, you can challenge and question it.
But how can I. I cannot repeat the Big Bang in a laboratory, nor can I repeat evolution in a laboratory. By Evolution I mean Macro, not Micro. Unless I can go back to the very begining, I cannot be sure that this is exactly how things happen. I am not trying to be difficult but how does one extrapolate back millions or billions of years and say that conditions were the same then as now or as "scientists state to make these extrapolations fact. You say "But you can look at a jet airliner and know how it came about or a bridge. True there is documentation of bridges and airliners being built. And witnesses. Where are the witnesses to creation? To other creatures "evolving" to become man? Yes, I know, we have DNA similarities and carbon 14 dating but do we have the "real thing". And yet if you question today's scientific community you are labelled stupid, ignorant, a religious fanatic, uneducated. At the very best you are sneered, ridiculed and laughed at. At the worst you are shunned and denied funds, studies etc. Ridicule is not part of the scientific process. I, for one, can believe in both. The existence of an intelligent, all-present, all-knowledgeable creator as well as the fundamental theories of science, albeit not today's science that emphatically states "God does not exist and never does, if you believe in science, you cannot believe in the existence of God". So scientists are now telling us that they have the answeres to everything and that everything that exists can be/is explained by them. Science is becoming the new "religion". Personally I believe that neither "science" nor "religion" are seeing the whole true picture and that someday, hopefully, we all may see that all of us weren't entirely "on target".
You obviously know very little of the scientific process and of what reputable scientists state. Scientists do NOT claim that they have answers to everything, as you suggest, those would be fundamentalist Christians. I don't think I've ever heard a scientist state that everything can be explained at this point. When contradictory claims are made about scientific theories, scientists only require some evidence, or even a plausible hypothesis, in order to reevaluate their conclusions.
Scientists are most excited when one of their findings opens up even more questions than it answers. Darwin and Newton both had discoveries that raised more questions than it answered, and only by asking those questions can we continue to discover more and more about the world around us. Religion only changes its position on the natural world when it is too embarrassing for them not to.
You don't have to repeat the Big Bang in a laboratory any more than you have to commit another murder to prove that a murder victim was killed with a hammer. You can look at the evidence and see it. You can reconstruct the crime scene, looking at the victim's injury, the patterns of blood splatters, the presence of the victims blood on a potential weapon, and even tiny details like the killer's DNA. When there is enough evidence from physical observations (collection of evidence), physics (pattern of blood splatter, force required to cause the fatal blow), and comparison to other murders everything begins to converge on an inescapable conclusion. It might take additional time to determine who committed the crime, but you can look at a crime scene and easily determine that a crime happened and what the mechanism of murder was.
Thus it is with evolution and the Big Bang. All of the evidence, all of the scientific disciplines, all of the observations converge on the same conclusion.
I concur. I see that the earth is round so yes I believe science is right about that even though we walk on flat surfaces.
I will believe in evolution if I see something evolve from something. No not the freaking viruses. Something as complex as seeing a fish LITERALLY learn to walk.
But if science will only give me a BS reason that it will take billions of years for it to happen then I will prefer believing I was created by a higher being.
You don't walk on a flat surface.
Have you ever seen a mudskipper? We've already seen natural selection happen over and over again in complex species. The process is obvious and clear. It doesn't take billions of years, and can happen in a few generations.
You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't change what you actually are and where you actually came from.
Here is a partial list of scientists that have expressed a belief in God. I know that you will ridicule this in some shape or form but it is what it is. Yes, I DO know about the scientific process Amaznjohn but let's all admit, scientist or fundamentalist as you put it, that we are all human and thus, NOT perfect. Let people have their belief in God and stop ridiculing them for it whether you think it is ignorant or not.
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Robert Boyle (1791-1867), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907), Max Planck (1858-1947), Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
You can choose to follow the experimental path through the observable world that leads to a converging proof of evolution and the big bang in every scientific discipline and come to an understanding of it.... You can do the work yourself, you can see the research, you can follow the reasoning, you can challenge and question it.
But how can I. I cannot repeat the Big Bang in a laboratory, nor can I repeat evolution in a laboratory. By Evolution I mean Macro, not Micro. Unless I can go back to the very begining, I cannot be sure that this is exactly how things happen. I am not trying to be difficult but how does one extrapolate back millions or billions of years and say that conditions were the same then as now or as "scientists state to make these extrapolations fact. You say "But you can look at a jet airliner and know how it came about or a bridge. True there is documentation of bridges and airliners being built. And witnesses. Where are the witnesses to creation? To other creatures "evolving" to become man? Yes, I know, we have DNA similarities and carbon 14 dating but do we have the "real thing". And yet if you question today's scientific community you are labelled stupid, ignorant, a religious fanatic, uneducated. At the very best you are sneered, ridiculed and laughed at. At the worst you are shunned and denied funds, studies etc. Ridicule is not part of the scientific process. I, for one, can believe in both. The existence of an intelligent, all-present, all-knowledgeable creator as well as the fundamental theories of science, albeit not today's science that emphatically states "God does not exist and never did, if you believe in science, you cannot believe in the existence of God". So scientists are now telling us that they have the answeres to everything and that everything that exists can be/is explained by them. Science is becoming the new "religion". Personally I believe that neither "science" nor "religion" are seeing the whole true picture and that someday, hopefully, we all may see that all of us weren't entirely "on target".
Macro evolution is the normal outcome of micro evolution. It's the exact same process, just more of it.
Eventually enough micro evolutionary changes in the DNA will result in the inability to breed with the species ancestors. That is the new species, and that is how the accumulation of micro evolution results in macro evolution.
We can and have caused macro evolution, which equates to speciation. We've done it with plants, fly's, bacteria, etc. We've created new species of sheep out of evolving the old ones. Evntually, the new species can no longer breed with their relatives.
Yep, there is no "microevolution" and "macroevolution", just evolution. It is the same thing
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.
