Total Posts:211|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution taught as fact in schools

Wandile
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 3:43:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I just completed high school and did biology as a subject. I don't have a problem with the extensive evolution section we did in the subject. What I do have a problem with is that it seemed like they were teaching it as a fact. I am troubled with this because evolution , at the end of the day, is just a theory (an explanation for a particular subject). I have no problem with micro-evolution as I believe this should not even be called evolution, but it should simply be called variation. However I have problem with macro-evolution (the development of new life forms from pre-existing ones). I hated that it was constantly being taught as fact. I really believe schools should be able to at least give alternate explanations for the origin of life like religious theories because although religion is not science...science in its nature should be and is open to all explanations.

I don't believe in macro-evolution but I am an open-minded person. I just hate the fact that evolution is being taught as a fact when it is only a theory. We are told not to shove our religion down peoples throats but yet secular governments shove their secular beliefs down ours? This is hypocritical. This is just my opinion and I'm eager to see what others have to say on this topic.

*Please can there be no insults at one-another... O hope this can be discussed peacefully and openly.

Thanks
"Possibly deluded.... no way to confirm the veracity. That is an extraordinary claim to suggest billions the world over and throughout history are deluded. Proof?
Also if you actually believe these Billions of historical Christians are deluded, what gives you a warrant to special plead you are not equally self deluded within your own views? Sounds like self contradictory belief system you are under." - Gileandos

The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice - Proverb
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 3:56:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't understand what the controversy over evolution is about. If you understand it, it is hard to see how it couldn't be true. It is scary how much sense it makes.

No religious explanation takes into account all the facts, and the explanatory scope is too nil for any to be taken seriously as scientific theories as a result.

Evolution pretty much is an accepted fact. It is a very well supported theory.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 3:59:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Evolution is indeed a fact. I am a Theist-evolutionist so to speak.
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:00:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 3:56:27 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I don't understand what the controversy over evolution is about. If you understand it, it is hard to see how it couldn't be true. It is scary how much sense it makes.

No religious explanation takes into account all the facts, and the explanatory scope is too nil for any to be taken seriously as scientific theories as a result.

Evolution pretty much is an accepted fact. It is a very well supported theory.

Its very easy to see,carbon dating is not accurate, therefore we don't know how old the earth is. There are no transitional fossils. Sceitists don't have real facts about the big bang. Having studied this I find the bible to be far more reliable then this evolution theory that is full of holes.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:01:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
One of the first things taught at high school science subjects is the scientific method. In short, science deals with observable phenomena. If you observe certain movements of an object, you make a hypothesis. For example: Ball X' movement is not affected by wind resistance.

The scientific method is as follows: hypothesis, theory, law. Once you've made a hypothesis, you test it. If you through repeatable tests can confirm that Ball X' movement is unaffected by wind resistance, then you get a theory. The difference between a theory and a law is sometimes vague, but generally a theory is accepted as a fact in general, but has certain points that are not yet explained.

The theory of evolution falls under the category of biology. Biology is about life. And what is specific about life? It changes. We interfere with the nature of life on a daily basis. When you take pills, you interfere with nature. Thus, your body today might be wholly different to your body in 50 years. This is why biology mostly deals with scientific theories rather than laws (except in certain cases, such as plant breeding).

In contrast to say, physics, biology deals with what changes. That's why it is very hard to establish scientific laws within biology, as compared to other scientific fields.

The reason why evolution is not taught as a scientific law is because there are certain hypotheses that are disputed. This, however, does not make evolution a mere hypothesis. It is true as a whole, but certain parts are unexplained.
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:02:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 4:01:19 PM, Mirza wrote:
One of the first things taught at high school science subjects is the scientific method. In short, science deals with observable phenomena. If you observe certain movements of an object, you make a hypothesis. For example: Ball X' movement is not affected by wind resistance.

The scientific method is as follows: hypothesis, theory, law. Once you've made a hypothesis, you test it. If you through repeatable tests can confirm that Ball X' movement is unaffected by wind resistance, then you get a theory. The difference between a theory and a law is sometimes vague, but generally a theory is accepted as a fact in general, but has certain points that are not yet explained.

The theory of evolution falls under the category of biology. Biology is about life. And what is specific about life? It changes. We interfere with the nature of life on a daily basis. When you take pills, you interfere with nature. Thus, your body today might be wholly different to your body in 50 years. This is why biology mostly deals with scientific theories rather than laws (except in certain cases, such as plant breeding).

In contrast to say, physics, biology deals with what changes. That's why it is very hard to establish scientific laws within biology, as compared to other scientific fields.

The reason why evolution is not taught as a scientific law is because there are certain hypotheses that are disputed. This, however, does not make evolution a mere hypothesis. It is true as a whole, but certain parts are unexplained.

yes science does involve the scientific method, that is why I ask show me a transitional fossil. You can't do it. How does evolution answer the question about how the universe began? It fails. Evolution is wrong.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:08:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Every fossil is technically a transitonal fossil, and carbon dating isn't the only method of determining age.

Even then, these are not details to get hung up on. The theory makes logical sense, the fact that evidence strongly supports it certainly is an added bonus.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:12:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 4:08:54 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Every fossil is technically a transitonal fossil, and carbon dating isn't the only method of determining age.

Even then, these are not details to get hung up on. The theory makes logical sense, the fact that evidence strongly supports it certainly is an added bonus.

Are you ducking he questions? Carbon dating is a faulty method, he did not show any single transitional fossil. He states that I should not get hung up on this. Ill bet that if I as a christian merely stated that we shouldn't just get hung up on the whole why does god allow bad things nonsense, that wouldn't be accepted. Don't even get me started on how evolution makes no sense based on the Cambrian explosion either.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:12:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 4:00:51 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
Its very easy to see,carbon dating is not accurate, therefore we don't know how old the earth is. There are no transitional fossils. Sceitists don't have real facts about the big bang. Having studied this I find the bible to be far more reliable then this evolution theory that is full of holes.
There are various age measurements. Take astronomy as an example. We can measure how many light years it took the light of a star to reach the Earth. If it took 5 million years, then we know for a certain that the 'age' of the star's light, as we see it, is 5 million years old.

As for transitional fossils, there are certainly many. However, DNA can be used as the alternative evidence. So, two methods to prove one thing right. It works.

You're confusing the Big Bang with evolution. You shouldn't. Big Bang is about the beginning of the universe. Evolution is about the periodic changes of the millions of life forms throughout millions of years (most of which happen to be extinct). This also has nothing to do with abiogenesis, the study of how these life forms originated in the first place.

As a Christan you should believe in Adam and Eve (peace be upon them). There are various ways in which you can reconcile their existence and role as parents of humankind with evolution.
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:14:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 4:12:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/16/2011 4:00:51 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
Its very easy to see,carbon dating is not accurate, therefore we don't know how old the earth is. There are no transitional fossils. Sceitists don't have real facts about the big bang. Having studied this I find the bible to be far more reliable then this evolution theory that is full of holes.
There are various age measurements. Take astronomy as an example. We can measure how many light years it took the light of a star to reach the Earth. If it took 5 million years, then we know for a certain that the 'age' of the star's light, as we see it, is 5 million years old.

As for transitional fossils, there are certainly many. However, DNA can be used as the alternative evidence. So, two methods to prove one thing right. It works.

You're confusing the Big Bang with evolution. You shouldn't. Big Bang is about the beginning of the universe. Evolution is about the periodic changes of the millions of life forms throughout millions of years (most of which happen to be extinct). This also has nothing to do with abiogenesis, the study of how these life forms originated in the first place.

As a Christan you should believe in Adam and Eve (peace be upon them). There are various ways in which you can reconcile their existence and role as parents of humankind with evolution.

Atheists putting faith in unproven theories, I wish I had that much faith. Ill place my faith in god, you place your faith in the theories of faulty man. We already know that evolution is false, evolution cannot explain the Cambrian explosion.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:16:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The distinction between 'fact' and 'theory' as promoted by creationists is a dishonest red-herring. A theory is a comprehensive explanation of a group of facts that has been extensively tested and confirmed (there's more to it than that but we can leave it for the moment). If it were 100% certain that evolution were true it would still be a theory.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:17:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I answered your questions in a manner I felt suitable for someone who I don't believe is honestly interested in advancing their understanding of the subject.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:17:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 4:01:19 PM, Mirza wrote:
One of the first things taught at high school science subjects is the scientific method. In short, science deals with observable phenomena. If you observe certain movements of an object, you make a hypothesis. For example: Ball X' movement is not affected by wind resistance.

The scientific method is as follows: hypothesis, theory, law. Once you've made a hypothesis, you test it. If you through repeatable tests can confirm that Ball X' movement is unaffected by wind resistance, then you get a theory. The difference between a theory and a law is sometimes vague, but generally a theory is accepted as a fact in general, but has certain points that are not yet explained.

The theory of evolution falls under the category of biology. Biology is about life. And what is specific about life? It changes. We interfere with the nature of life on a daily basis. When you take pills, you interfere with nature. Thus, your body today might be wholly different to your body in 50 years. This is why biology mostly deals with scientific theories rather than laws (except in certain cases, such as plant breeding).

In contrast to say, physics, biology deals with what changes. That's why it is very hard to establish scientific laws within biology, as compared to other scientific fields.

The reason why evolution is not taught as a scientific law is because there are certain hypotheses that are disputed. This, however, does not make evolution a mere hypothesis. It is true as a whole, but certain parts are unexplained.

That was very articulate and well explained.

I would point out though I do not feel that we should "special plead" when it comes to a very hard to understand science or something that is loosely defined as science.

The point of scientific experimenation is before you can legitimately test a hypothesis the test must be replicatable.
Certain sciences have the right to special plead however, macro evolution has never been "tested" in a scientific sense much less replicable.

I do not think that the OP has issue with the teaching even as it is the only natural explanation offered to date, but is taking issue with it being taught as fact.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:21:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 3:43:49 PM, Wandile wrote:
I just completed high school and did biology as a subject. I don't have a problem with the extensive evolution section we did in the subject. What I do have a problem with is that it seemed like they were teaching it as a fact. I am troubled with this because evolution , at the end of the day, is just a theory (an explanation for a particular subject). I have no problem with micro-evolution as I believe this should not even be called evolution, but it should simply be called variation. However I have problem with macro-evolution (the development of new life forms from pre-existing ones). I hated that it was constantly being taught as fact.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains facts. Schools teach evolution as a fact because it is a fact.

I really believe schools should be able to at least give alternate explanations for the origin of life like religious theories because although religion is not science...science in its nature should be and is open to all explanations.

Which creation myths do you want them to teach. There are probably hundreds. Why do you think that bronze age mythologists know more about biology than modern biologists do.


I don't believe in macro-evolution but I am an open-minded person. I just hate the fact that evolution is being taught as a fact when it is only a theory. We are told not to shove our religion down peoples throats but yet secular governments shove their secular beliefs down ours? This is hypocritical. This is just my opinion and I'm eager to see what others have to say on this topic.

*Please can there be no insults at one-another... O hope this can be discussed peacefully and openly.

Thanks
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:21:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Certain sciences have the right to special plead however, macro evolution has never been "tested" in a scientific sense much less replicable.

1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).

3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).

5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

-http://www.talkorigins.org...
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:22:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 4:17:16 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I answered your questions in a manner I felt suitable for someone who I don't believe is honestly interested in advancing their understanding of the subject.

Typical, I give good solid criticisms of your "fact" which is really just some theory of how it might have been and you tell me that I am not interested in discussing it. Who is the one refusing to discuss the topic?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:24:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 4:14:23 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/16/2011 4:12:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/16/2011 4:00:51 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
Its very easy to see,carbon dating is not accurate, therefore we don't know how old the earth is. There are no transitional fossils. Sceitists don't have real facts about the big bang. Having studied this I find the bible to be far more reliable then this evolution theory that is full of holes.
There are various age measurements. Take astronomy as an example. We can measure how many light years it took the light of a star to reach the Earth. If it took 5 million years, then we know for a certain that the 'age' of the star's light, as we see it, is 5 million years old.

As for transitional fossils, there are certainly many. However, DNA can be used as the alternative evidence. So, two methods to prove one thing right. It works.

You're confusing the Big Bang with evolution. You shouldn't. Big Bang is about the beginning of the universe. Evolution is about the periodic changes of the millions of life forms throughout millions of years (most of which happen to be extinct). This also has nothing to do with abiogenesis, the study of how these life forms originated in the first place.

As a Christan you should believe in Adam and Eve (peace be upon them). There are various ways in which you can reconcile their existence and role as parents of humankind with evolution.

Atheists putting faith in unproven theories, I wish I had that much faith. Ill place my faith in god, you place your faith in the theories of faulty man. We already know that evolution is false, evolution cannot explain the Cambrian explosion.
The idea of evolution came from people who also happened to be theists (including Muslims who lived during the Islamic Golden Age). I'm a Muslim, and have no problem believing in the major evolutionary theory. Nor should you.

The Cambrian Explosion has several explanations to it. I'll let the books sort it for you. However, you're saying that because something cannot currently be explained, it is therefore false. This is illogical, as most things we know today were left unexplained most of the time humankind was existing.
Wandile
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:26:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
One other problem with evolution is that nobody is ever told about how many sub-sects there are in the scientific evolution community. it is NOT a fact and should never be said so until proven. Has anyone ever seen Macro-evolution take place?

Many biologists have so many different theories concerning evolution. The evolution community is almost like a religion. Each sub-sect accuses the other of being wrong and saying their theories are wrong etc.

In fact since the early 90s a lot of evidence has been found discrediting the theory of evolution heavily. The theory is practically in shambles :

http://www.nwcreation.net...

http://www.overcomeproblems.com...

http://www.opentheword.org...
"Possibly deluded.... no way to confirm the veracity. That is an extraordinary claim to suggest billions the world over and throughout history are deluded. Proof?
Also if you actually believe these Billions of historical Christians are deluded, what gives you a warrant to special plead you are not equally self deluded within your own views? Sounds like self contradictory belief system you are under." - Gileandos

The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice - Proverb
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:30:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 4:01:19 PM, Mirza wrote:
It is true as a whole, but certain parts are unexplained.

And remember, kids, when you can't explain something - the answer is God :)
President of DDO
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:30:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 4:26:49 PM, Wandile wrote:
One other problem with evolution is that nobody is ever told about how many sub-sects there are in the scientific evolution community. it is NOT a fact and should never be said so until proven. Has anyone ever seen Macro-evolution take place?

Many biologists have so many different theories concerning evolution. The evolution community is almost like a religion. Each sub-sect accuses the other of being wrong and saying their theories are wrong etc.

In fact since the early 90s a lot of evidence has been found discrediting the theory of evolution heavily. The theory is practically in shambles :

http://www.nwcreation.net...

http://www.overcomeproblems.com...

http://www.opentheword.org...

They won't have an explanation for any of this. They take it on faith.
Buckethead31594
Posts: 363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:44:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 4:30:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/16/2011 4:01:19 PM, Mirza wrote:
It is true as a whole, but certain parts are unexplained.

And remember, kids, when you can't explain something - the answer is God :)

And is there something wrong with this? If no one can offer an explanation for our existence, it might as well be God; at least then there is meaning. Otherwise, every thing we could love and ever hope for originate from chemical reactions. What a great life this is.

Besides, knowledge can only go so far; there are things we will never understand. Isn't God one of those things that "can never be proven or disproven?" If so, all theories should be applicable; even religious ones.
"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:46:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 4:24:07 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/16/2011 4:14:23 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/16/2011 4:12:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/16/2011 4:00:51 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
Its very easy to see,carbon dating is not accurate, therefore we don't know how old the earth is. There are no transitional fossils. Sceitists don't have real facts about the big bang. Having studied this I find the bible to be far more reliable then this evolution theory that is full of holes.
There are various age measurements. Take astronomy as an example. We can measure how many light years it took the light of a star to reach the Earth. If it took 5 million years, then we know for a certain that the 'age' of the star's light, as we see it, is 5 million years old.

As for transitional fossils, there are certainly many. However, DNA can be used as the alternative evidence. So, two methods to prove one thing right. It works.

You're confusing the Big Bang with evolution. You shouldn't. Big Bang is about the beginning of the universe. Evolution is about the periodic changes of the millions of life forms throughout millions of years (most of which happen to be extinct). This also has nothing to do with abiogenesis, the study of how these life forms originated in the first place.

As a Christan you should believe in Adam and Eve (peace be upon them). There are various ways in which you can reconcile their existence and role as parents of humankind with evolution.

Atheists putting faith in unproven theories, I wish I had that much faith. Ill place my faith in god, you place your faith in the theories of faulty man. We already know that evolution is false, evolution cannot explain the Cambrian explosion.
The idea of evolution came from people who also happened to be theists (including Muslims who lived during the Islamic Golden Age). I'm a Muslim, and have no problem believing in the major evolutionary theory. Nor should you.

The Cambrian Explosion has several explanations to it. I'll let the books sort it for you. However, you're saying that because something cannot currently be explained, it is therefore false. This is illogical, as most things we know today were left unexplained most of the time humankind was existing.

Not at all, I clearly stated that to special plead from the scientific methodology you need you need warrant.

I have never seen appropriate warrant.

I do believe in super evolution as a model. I am not a YEC.

To correct you factually, Ancient Chinese came up with the idea of Macro evolution first.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:48:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I explained that every fossil is a transitional fossil, and that there are other methods of dating. I don't know where you're getting at with the cambrian explosion. I've given you the information you need to start learning on your own. I don't care to waste my time elaborating to the intellectually lazy.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:50:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 4:48:12 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I explained that every fossil is a transitional fossil, and that there are other methods of dating. I don't know where you're getting at with the cambrian explosion. I've given you the information you need to start learning on your own. I don't care to waste my time elaborating to the intellectually lazy.

you are aware that there is no way life could have superevolved that quickly during the cambrian explosion.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:53:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 4:46:29 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/16/2011 4:24:07 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/16/2011 4:14:23 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/16/2011 4:12:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/16/2011 4:00:51 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
Its very easy to see,carbon dating is not accurate, therefore we don't know how old the earth is. There are no transitional fossils. Sceitists don't have real facts about the big bang. Having studied this I find the bible to be far more reliable then this evolution theory that is full of holes.
There are various age measurements. Take astronomy as an example. We can measure how many light years it took the light of a star to reach the Earth. If it took 5 million years, then we know for a certain that the 'age' of the star's light, as we see it, is 5 million years old.

As for transitional fossils, there are certainly many. However, DNA can be used as the alternative evidence. So, two methods to prove one thing right. It works.

You're confusing the Big Bang with evolution. You shouldn't. Big Bang is about the beginning of the universe. Evolution is about the periodic changes of the millions of life forms throughout millions of years (most of which happen to be extinct). This also has nothing to do with abiogenesis, the study of how these life forms originated in the first place.

As a Christan you should believe in Adam and Eve (peace be upon them). There are various ways in which you can reconcile their existence and role as parents of humankind with evolution.

Atheists putting faith in unproven theories, I wish I had that much faith. Ill place my faith in god, you place your faith in the theories of faulty man. We already know that evolution is false, evolution cannot explain the Cambrian explosion.
The idea of evolution came from people who also happened to be theists (including Muslims who lived during the Islamic Golden Age). I'm a Muslim, and have no problem believing in the major evolutionary theory. Nor should you.

The Cambrian Explosion has several explanations to it. I'll let the books sort it for you. However, you're saying that because something cannot currently be explained, it is therefore false. This is illogical, as most things we know today were left unexplained most of the time humankind was existing.

Not at all, I clearly stated that to special plead from the scientific methodology you need you need warrant.

I have never seen appropriate warrant.

I do believe in super evolution as a model. I am not a YEC.
What are you talking about?

To correct you factually, Ancient Chinese came up with the idea of Macro evolution first.
I never disputed that. I'm saying that many people, including theists, came up with some explanations of evolution. Many were directly disconnected to one another, so a person in Europe during the medieval ages came up with the idea without knowing that people in China mentioned it long before.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:57:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 4:21:49 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Certain sciences have the right to special plead however, macro evolution has never been "tested" in a scientific sense much less replicable.

1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

We would expect to see manifested testable evidence of large changes over time.
Nothing posed as yet is convincing to me. There is many alternate interpretations of even the fossils that are found to "support" the theory.

Nothing is evident to have occurred.


2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).

It is the same problems with QM. It is indirect observations dependent left for the scientists to speculate. QM scientists make absurd claims like sudden generation to the contrary of evolutionists.


3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

Even the word species is subject to semantic debate. A dog has never been shown to become something other than a dog.


4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).

Micro evolution has been called "selection".
People have been breeding animals and selecting for traits for thousands of years. This is called artificial selection.

Within the last 100 years, we have developed countless new species of rabbits for example. The changes are vast and some really cool like Lionheads. However, we have yet to produce anything that remotely has staged to become something other than a rabbit.


5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

-http://www.talkorigins.org...

LOL. Sure. Dream the wonderful Dream!

Even Nat Geo doubted Tiktaalik fossil and made assertions the scientist faked it.
You should watch the episode. It was followed at the end with a ton of scientists denying the interpretations of the discovering scientist.

It is equal to Global Warming lies and falsehoods as much as the falsehoods and lies that permeates psychology.

All bunk.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 4:58:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 4:50:03 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/16/2011 4:48:12 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I explained that every fossil is a transitional fossil, and that there are other methods of dating. I don't know where you're getting at with the cambrian explosion. I've given you the information you need to start learning on your own. I don't care to waste my time elaborating to the intellectually lazy.

you are aware that there is no way life could have superevolved that quickly during the cambrian explosion.

You are aware that if the Earth was round, all the water would fall off of tge sides, and that houses in China would use the ground as a ceiling, right?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 5:01:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 4:58:12 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 12/16/2011 4:50:03 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/16/2011 4:48:12 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I explained that every fossil is a transitional fossil, and that there are other methods of dating. I don't know where you're getting at with the cambrian explosion. I've given you the information you need to start learning on your own. I don't care to waste my time elaborating to the intellectually lazy.

you are aware that there is no way life could have superevolved that quickly during the cambrian explosion.

You are aware that if the Earth was round, all the water would fall off of tge sides, and that houses in China would use the ground as a ceiling, right?

What are you talking about scripture taught us the earth is round: Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 5:14:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Maybe round like a plate, but a ball it is not. Otherwise, if you traveled far enough, it would be a downhill ride up until you fall off the side. This is clearly ridiculous. My God makes it clear that the Earth is flat, and you can only circumnavigate it because there are portals on the edges that lead to the other side. This is all in the "Honest Book of Truth", as dictated by the Goddess herself.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 5:17:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 3:43:49 PM, Wandile wrote:
I am troubled with this because evolution , at the end of the day, is just a theory (an explanation for a particular subject).

Big difference between a theory and scientific theory. A scientific theory has criteria that has to be met.

I have no problem with micro-evolution as I believe this should not even be called evolution, but it should simply be called variation. However I have problem with macro-evolution (the development of new life forms from pre-existing ones).

Why do you have a problem with macro evolution ? You already accept change on a micro level, is it not the case that macro evolution is just a long line of micro evolution ?

I hated that it was constantly being taught as fact. I really believe schools should be able to at least give alternate explanations for the origin of life like religious theories because although religion is not science...science in its nature should be and is open to all explanations.

So we can teach all alternative theories right ? Just not those pushed by the christian evangelicals ? How about we all live in the matrix ? How about a douche bag creator that created us to watch us suffer and laugh cause that is how it gets its lolz ? How about this is all a dream and when the thing that is dreaming us wakes up we are all screwed. You want to be open minded about alternatives right ?

I don't believe in macro-evolution but I am an open-minded person. I just hate the fact that evolution is being taught as a fact when it is only a theory. We are told not to shove our religion down peoples throats but yet secular governments shove their secular beliefs down ours? This is hypocritical. This is just my opinion and I'm eager to see what others have to say on this topic.

Its hypocritical to equate a testable hypothesis (That is to say there is a way to prove it false if it is false) with a non testable hypothesis.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12