Notices
Results 1 to 75 of 75
Like Tree36Likes
  • 1 Post By question for you
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By question for you
  • 1 Post By question for you
  • 1 Post By question for you
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By RedPanda
  • 1 Post By PhDemon
  • 1 Post By PhDemon
  • 1 Post By PhDemon
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 3 Post By Flick Montana
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By RedPanda
  • 1 Post By Bassoongirl34
  • 4 Post By Daecon
  • 1 Post By PhDemon
  • 4 Post By Daecon
  • 1 Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
  • 1 Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
  • 7 Post By billvon

Thread: the Evolution theory... how much evidence is there?

  1. #1 the Evolution theory... how much evidence is there? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I know darwin noticed that species adapt to suit changing environments, and that he said natural selection is the mechanism behind this adaptation... But ever since it seems like 'Evolution' has been promoted as an explaination of how life has occured on earth... I beleive most theories indicate that we all evolved from some kind of single celled bacteria.

    My question is... How much evidence and proof do we have of the 'evolutionary' theory which implies all creatures have slowly evolved from the same basic life forms?

    I dont doubt evolution, I dont doubt adaption... I just find it strange that 'evolution' is promoted so heavily in schools and media as the leading theory of our 'creation' or 'existence' here on earth. When in reality, as far as im aware, nobody has ever witnessed one species evolve into a new one. It seems like somebody is promoting this 'evolution theory' becuase they want to do away with 'creationist' theories... when in fact as far as i can tell... evolution doesnt disproove all of the creationist theories and most creationist theories would agree that species can adapt.

    Anybody got any insights on this topic?


    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    P.S... not sure why this is under 'psuedo science'! I geuss the aim for me is to find out how much of the 'evolution' theory is psuedo science, or, how much psuedo science is 'the theory of evolution' responsible for?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Firstly, strictly speaking, evolution doesn't say anything about how life arose or was created. That is mainly because we don't have a complete explanation for that currently. But it is almost certainly some sort of pre-life "chemical evolution".

    We have mountains of evidence for evolution and for common origins. One fairly obvious one is simply the fact that all life has the same genetic code, uses the same biochemistry, etc. But we also have evidence from archaeology and biology morphology, etc).

    And we do see new species being created. You can find a few examples here: Observed Instances of Speciation

    I don't know much about creationism but as far as I know it has nothing to do with science, it is just "this is what we think the bible says". And of course, it isn't only accepted by some religious people (the Catholic church rejects it for example as they prefer science to that sort of literalism).
    samsmoot likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    My point is that evolution is being taught to laymen like me as the explaination of our origin... when it seems there is little proof of this. I think the scientific comunity needs to step up and make it clear what evolution is, what it is not, what it explains, and what it doesnt explain... Because it seems to me that evolution or dawinism, is the new religion being used to fundamentally change the way people think and act, when all Darwin really explained was that he's observed species adapting to environments.

    Am I wrong?

    thanks for reading this far
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Firstly, strictly speaking, evolution doesn't say anything about how life arose or was created. That is mainly because we don't have a complete explanation for that currently. But it is almost certainly some sort of pre-life "chemical evolution".

    We have mountains of evidence for evolution and for common origins. One fairly obvious one is simply the fact that all life has the same genetic code, uses the same biochemistry, etc. But we also have evidence from archaeology and biology morphology, etc).

    And we do see new species being created. You can find a few examples here: Observed Instances of Speciation

    I don't know much about creationism but as far as I know it has nothing to do with science, it is just "this is what we think the bible says". And of course, it isn't only accepted by some religious people (the Catholic church rejects it for example as they prefer science to that sort of literalism).



    No time to check the link right now strange but i'll be back on it over the weekend or early next week. Im very interested to see what that teaches me.

    Thanks for clearing up what i thought which is that evolution does not explain our creation. Some kind of 'chemical evolution' is the mainstream theory and its easy to agree with this as it does seem intuitive and common sense like, especially in light of the theory of evolution. But that chemical origin of evolution theory has only come about due to the adaption theories of darwin. It seems logical but i dont think you can say its certain at all.

    having the same genetic code and biochemistry isn't anymore evidence that we all evolve from a common ancestor than it is evidence that we were all created by God, or by Aliens... after all a potter may produce many types of vessle, but he may use the same materials for them all... i.e clay.

    im not into 'creationism' which commonly is associated with the biblical accounts of our origin. I think the only thing that connects it to science is that it is always being argued against by people claiming 'evolution' disprooves the bible's accounts of creationism.

    Although one could have a more science based theory that we are all 'created' not necesarilly by god... perhaps by aliens... perhaps by the higgs boson feild... perhaps by some universal intelligence that operates on a sub atomic level... perhaps we are just created by nature... well its seems we almost certainly are created by nature so in that sense it would in no way be contrary to science as far as im aware, to theorise about 'creation'

    be back to this thread as soon as pos. thanks for your input strange.
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    having the same genetic code and biochemistry isn't anymore evidence that we all evolve from a common ancestor than it is evidence that we were all created by God, or by Aliens...
    It's not just that it is the same, it is also the fact that you can trace the changes through generations and through related species.

    I suppose someone could argue that they were all created last week and made to look as if they share a common ancestor, but that is hardly scientific (or even useful).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    "And we do see new species being created. You can find a few examples here: Observed Instances of Speciation"

    That report is a bit long for me to read all the way through... the accademic style is dry and boring for me and it uses a lot of words that i will need to look up which makes the process possibly unworthy of my efforts at this point.
    I had a quick look though, it made me realise I didn't mean to ask about speciation, I heard about plants and dogs etc hybridizing into new species.
    In nomenclature I beleive 'creatures' are catergorized by Genus and Species ( homo is our genus and sapien is our species), we have seen species evolve into existence by hibridization and also genetic 'mutations'? called polymoidization? but is there any examples of where a completely new genus has evolved? a new plant or animal that is not just an adaption or variation or hybridization, but a whole new genus evolving from a previous one? with any real solid evidence? Because if there is good evidence of this kind of thing then it makes it more belivable that all the genusesssess and all thethe different species could have evolved from a common ancestor.

    If you know of any strange then do me a favour and just state it breifly for me rather than give me hours of report reading to get through please.

    Thanks for your comments :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    In nomenclature I beleive 'creatures' are catergorized by Genus and Species ( homo is our genus and sapien is our species)
    First, it is important to realise that these divisions are fairly arbitrary. Organisms are fairly frequently assigned to a different genus, for example (so, in that sense we do see a "new" genus being produced).

    but is there any examples of where a completely new genus has evolved?
    As a genus is just a grouping of related species, the question doesn't make much sense as it is. A new species is always going to be sufficiently similar to its predecessors that it will, initially, be grouped into the same genus. You are never going to see a bird giving birth to a fish.

    However, there is no reason why at some time in the future it might not be decided to put that new species (and any others derived from it) into a genus of their own.

    In the fossil record there are of course many examples of genera appearing.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    having the same genetic code and biochemistry isn't anymore evidence that we all evolve from a common ancestor than it is evidence that we were all created by God, or by Aliens...
    It's not just that it is the same, it is also the fact that you can trace the changes through generations and through related species.

    I suppose someone could argue that they were all created last week and made to look as if they share a common ancestor, but that is hardly scientific (or even useful).


    Last week isn't very realisistic or useful! But some claim God created life, others think aliens created us or breed us a few thousand years ago, others probably think other things... Whether these theories are in anyway scientific is not for me to say because I don't know about any scientific evidence or efforts to gain evidence for any of these theories.
    I was playing 'devils advocate', it's just that all of us being built out of such similar materials and structures doesn't in itself suggest that we definitly was not created by some kind of superior inteligence.

    P.S I will keep looking through the literature you gave me, thanks for that.
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I think the thing I was trying to learn about and question was 'the theory of common descent' rather than the theory of evolution. My bad.

    "Biologists have evidence that all life developed from a common ancestor that lived just under 4 billion years ago, and the concept is accepted by virtually all scientists working in the field" Common descent - RationalWiki

    The fact that it isn't accepted by ALL scientists is rather intriguing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    The fact that it isn't accepted by ALL scientists is rather intriguing.
    That's the nature of science. If you didn't have people pushing the boundaries you wouldn't make progress.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    it's not really the theory of evolution that creationists have a problem with is it? it's the theory of common descent. It's just that when you take evolution into account, the theory of common descent seems more probable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    That's the thing. When you know how genetics works, evolution is inevitable. And therefore common descent.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I think the thing I was trying to learn about and question was 'the theory of common descent' rather than the theory of evolution. My bad.

    "Biologists have evidence that all life developed from a common ancestor that lived just under 4 billion years ago, and the concept is accepted by virtually all scientists working in the field" Common descent - RationalWiki

    The fact that it isn't accepted by ALL scientists is rather intriguing.
    I'm not sure why you find that intriguing. 100% agreement on anything is almost never achieved. You'll almost always find at least one person with a contrary opinion or belief because there's almost always at least one not-yet explained observation that leaves the door open a bit. That's why science is never truly done. Science always admits that there's room for revision should new data require it. But as more and more evidence accumulates in favor of a given theory, the bar to revision naturally rises, since any newcomer theory must remain consistent with the large established body of evidence, while simultaneously explaining the new data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    The fact that it isn't accepted by ALL scientists is rather intriguing.
    That's the nature of science. If you didn't have people pushing the boundaries you wouldn't make progress.
    It's intriguing that these individual scientists within the field refuse to accept the theory that the vast majority do accept... thats more the nature of man, of which science is a part.
    It is often the few dissenters who do the most to help theories and concepts evolve and advance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    It's intriguing that these individual scientists within the field refuse to accept the theory that the vast majority do accept... thats more the nature of man, of which science is a part.
    It is often the few dissenters who do the most to help theories and concepts evolve and advance.
    There's always a dynamic tension in science, as becomes obvious if you ever attend a conference. Disagreement is much more common than lay audiences seem to be aware of. The key is that only evidence-based disagreement is taken seriously. Not all dissenting ideas are equally valuable or valid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Einstein never quite accepted the consequences of quantum theory (despite getting the Nobel Prize for his work in the field). His continual pushing and questioning never got the result he wanted. But it did help others make progress.
    tk421 likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    "I'm not sure why you find that intriguing. 100% agreement on anything is almost never achieved. You'll almost always find at least one person with a contrary opinion or belief because there's almost always at least one not-yet explained observation that leaves the door open a bit. That's why science is never truly done. Science always admits that there's room for revision should new data require it. But as more and more evidence accumulates in favor of a given theory, the bar to revision naturally rises, since any newcomer theory must remain consistent with the large established body of evidence, while simultaneously explaining the new data.[/QUOTE]

    I think its intriguing because these are all experts, they all share the same body of knowledge yet can't agree... scientists shouldn't really beleive anything, they should know but not beleive if you know what i mean? If scientists can not agree then they must have good reason to disagree with a theory.

    I don't see why newcomer theories should necesarilly have to be consistent with the body of knowledge. Sometimes new evidence might be strong enough to undermine the bulk of knowledge and rewrite the bulk of knowledge im geussing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Einstein never quite accepted the consequences of quantum theory (despite getting the Nobel Prize for his work in the field). His continual pushing and questioning never got the result he wanted. But it did help others make progress.
    You're openning a whole new can of worms for me... Quantum theory?!? yikes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Oh quantum theory is all about the nature of matter and subatomic particals! I know more about it than i realised, thats a fascinating feild.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I don't see why newcomer theories should necesarilly have to be consistent with the body of knowledge. Sometimes new evidence might be strong enough to undermine the bulk of knowledge and rewrite the bulk of knowledge im geussing.
    New theories do have to be consistent with the body of knowledge. And when new evidence comes along, new theories are developed (plate tectonics, quantum theory, relativity, evolution ...).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    ah i see, i misunderstood the term body of knowledge. I thought it was implied that new theories must fit in with current theories, now i realise body of knowledge means current evidence, not current theories...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I think its intriguing because these are all experts, they all share the same body of knowledge yet can't agree... scientists shouldn't really beleive anything, they should know but not beleive if you know what i mean? If scientists can not agree then they must have good reason to disagree with a theory.
    Sometimes there's not a whole lot of data (for example, in the early days of cosmology, our instruments were crude), so the prevailing theory might be seen as based on a fairly loose foundation. But the greater the base of experimental measurements that are consistent with a theory, the stronger the theory.

    I don't see why newcomer theories should necesarilly have to be consistent with the body of knowledge. Sometimes new evidence might be strong enough to undermine the bulk of knowledge and rewrite the bulk of knowledge im geussing.
    I used the phrase "body of evidence," not "body of knowledge." In any event, a newcomer theory must be consistent with that body of evidence. Or the dissenter has to show that the previously-accepted evidence is wrong (e.g., a measuring instrument was improperly calibrated, or operated improperly, etc.).

    The more important the theory, the more scrutiny it tends to receive. That generally means more dollars, more people looking at the theory, more experiments run and a greater body of well-vetted evidence. These days, that collectively tends to imply a very high barrier indeed. Most lay people seriously underestimate how high that barrier is (as is evident from the large number of posts -- here and elsewhere -- about how Einstein had it all wrong, that superluminal communication is possible, infinite energy is around the corner, Darwin was Satan's uncle, the universe is actually shrinking, etc.). Coming up with a new idea is easy. Coming with a new idea that isn't fatally flawed from the outset is much, much harder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    all understood^
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I know darwin noticed that species adapt to suit changing environments, and that he said natural selection is the mechanism behind this adaptation... But ever since it seems like 'Evolution' has been promoted as an explaination of how life has occured on earth... I beleive most theories indicate that we all evolved from some kind of single celled bacteria.
    Evolution has to do with how species change. The origin of life is a theory and whose hyothesis is that highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years. But nobody knows how life began on Earth. No theory of the spefifics of how this happened has yet be agreed upon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange
    I don't know much about creationism but as far as I know it has nothing to do with science, it is just "this is what we think the bible says". And of course, it isn't only accepted by some religious people (the Catholic church rejects it for example as they prefer science to that sort of literalism).
    That is incorrect. The Church's position on evolution is stated here
    Adam, Eve, and Evolution | Catholic Answers
    Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
    Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
    See also
    Catholic Church and evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Today[update], the Church's unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, also known as evolutionary creation,stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict.
    ...

    In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Blessed John Paul II updated the Church's position to accept evolution of the human body:
    "In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    question for you, it would be better if you distinquished between hypothesis and theory. I'm not sure any theory of modern science has been replaced, while many hypothesis have been scrapped for better ones. And unlike the common myth, most progress is being made by people in the middle of their fields, not on the fringes. Increasingly collaborations between multiple fields has pushed things ahead as well.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    question for you, it would be better if you distinquished between hypothesis and theory. I'm not sure any theory of modern science has been replaced, while many hypothesis have been scrapped for better ones. And unlike the common myth, most progress is being made by people in the middle of their fields, not on the fringes. Increasingly collaborations between multiple fields has pushed things ahead as well.
    Ok I will try to brush up on theory and hypothosis, thank you.

    I'm certainly in favour of collaboration between feilds... i think it's not efficient to have scientists in different feilds going off on there own tangents, focusing on details but not relating them to the bigger picture. I think thats why we have the steroetype of a scientist being a very sharp intellect, knowing stuff most of us have no about, yet at the same time being clueless and naive in other areas of life. the way scientific students are encouraged to go into specific fields rather than study science as a whole encourages it. IMO.
    Whats the name for somebody who is an expert in all the main feilds of science?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Whats the name for somebody who is an expert in all the main feilds of science?
    They don't exist.

    There are generalist of course, knowing a bit about many fields of science--but in most cases they could only be called an expert in perhaps one field. I have an M.S. in meteorology, some work research experience and publications in peer review literature--perhaps arguably an expert in that field, but I'd even hesitate at that because even meteorology is pretty broad. I'm not an expert at any other science field: I'm next most knowledgeable in climatology because it's the closest to my own field, than down the list with a few courses each in oceanography, biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry etc. I've also got huge holes--I've yet to take a geology course for example. I am not nor will ever be an expert at those other fields--at best I'll be a competent generalist, perhaps someone who can say they are an amateur "naturalist" who's also had a few years of pedagogy eduction so can teach science and math to high school kids (my goal).
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    There's a lot to learn I agree! sounds like you're faily broad

    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    question for you, it would be better if you distinquished between hypothesis and theory. I'm not sure any theory of modern science has been replaced, while many hypothesis have been scrapped for better ones. And unlike the common myth, most progress is being made by people in the middle of their fields, not on the fringes. Increasingly collaborations between multiple fields has pushed things ahead as well.
    Who is you? It's unclear to me if you were asking me since your post was addressed to someone but its unclear to me if it was me, someone else or everyone in general.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by pmb View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    question for you, it would be better if you distinquished between hypothesis and theory. I'm not sure any theory of modern science has been replaced, while many hypothesis have been scrapped for better ones. And unlike the common myth, most progress is being made by people in the middle of their fields, not on the fringes. Increasingly collaborations between multiple fields has pushed things ahead as well.
    Who is you? It's unclear to me if you were asking me since your post was addressed to someone but its unclear to me if it was me, someone else or everyone in general.
    I am you
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    There's a lot to learn I agree! sounds like you're faily broad

    Thanks, but my main point is just to use myself as an example that we passed the point of anyone being an expert in anymore than a tiny fraction of science a century or two ago. Even people, exceedingly rare, that accumulate severl Ph.D. (s) can't really be considered "expert in all the main fields of science."
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    There's a lot to learn I agree! sounds like you're faily broad

    Thanks, but my main point is just to use myself as an example that we passed the point of anyone being an expert in anymore than a tiny fraction of science a century or two ago. Even people, exceedingly rare, that accumulate severl Ph.D. (s) can't really be considered "expert in all the main fields of science."
    I understand. So how much are scientists collaborating though, thats the question. If all scientists shared there finding with all the other we could make more progress. Presumably one finds private scientists and millitary scientists and so on whose finding are rarely shared? then you get government scientists from many nations, do they collaborate much?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    How much are scientists collaborating though, thats the question. If all scientists shared there finding with all the other we could make more progress. Presumably one finds private scientists and millitary scientists and so on whose finding are rarely shared? then you get government scientists from many nations, do they collaborate much?
    I thought this was a interesting question/point. maybe it didn't get any antention because of the name of the thread?

    Furthermore... How much of the science that is known is actually added to the 'body of knowledge' for standard researchers to learn about?

    It seems to me our violent ways of thinking and living are holding us back in many ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you
    How much are scientists collaborating though, thats the question.
    Collaboration is extensive and varied in nature.

    1. A central form of collaboration is through publication of research in Journals. This makes ones ideas available to others in the same research community. To give an idea of the scope of this medium there are over six hundred Earth Science journals alone.
    2. Few researchers work as individuals. They are more likely to be part of a small team whose members will work very closely together. Beyond this they will have networks of contacts in the same field with whom they will exchange ideas.
    I just took a look at twenty papers selected at random on planetology: fourteen of the twenty had multiple authors. If you look at papers on particle physics, or gentics you may find a dozen, or twenty authors credited with the work.
    3. Scientists routinely meet at international conferences. Again considering the field of Geology and Geophysics I find fifty seven such conferences between now and the end of 2013, and these are only those listed in one specific internet site that I am certain is not comprehensive.

    If all scientists shared there finding with all the other we could make more progress
    You are ignorant on this point. Publication of research - i.e. sharing your findings - is central to any research scientist. It happens. It happens in multiple ways. What you think should be happening is happening. End of story.

    Presumably one finds private scientists and millitary scientists and so on whose finding are rarely shared?
    What is a private scientist? If you mean some individual working in isolation on keeping his results secret then firstly there are almost none of those and frankly even if there are any they are not true scientists since sharing ones results is part of the process.

    If you mean an individual working for a company and creating intellectual property, then some of their research may take slightly longer to be made public and it will then likley be through the patent process.

    It is reasonable that military technology remains secret for a period of time, but note that most of that is technology, i.e. engineering, not science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    By private scientist I meant privately funded and not sharing it with the wider science comunity. Yes corperations maybe, governments, military departments. Who do most scientist work for anyway? the government?

    Its reasonable to assume most scientific investment is given with an eye on developing technology isn't it?

    You say i'm ignorant end of story, but I just wondered how much of scientific development is not shared through journals etc.? I suppose it would be immpossible to tell, as it's a secret.

    Does the u.k government reveal all spending on science and which departments have spent on on what research? Including millitary science budgets?

    John, will you tell me how to use the multi quote tool please... it would be useful for me. anytime I attempt it, all I can manage to do is present the quote as one large box. Is it simply a case of typing [Quote] befor and after a pasted sentence? if so, does it matter if a capitol is used or lower case?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    7
    We do have one common ancestor - Noah. After sin came into the world when Adam and Eve lived, the world became a sinful place and The Lord sent a great flood to wipe everyone out except Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives.
    If you've never read the Bible then I suggest you do - there is more truth in one verse of the Bible than there will ever be in any of our lives.
    (NLT - New Living Translation - modern text, KJV - King James Version - as close to the original text as the english language can get)
    Genesis 1:1
    (NLT) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    (KJV) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    Genesis 2:7
    (NLT) Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man's nostrils, and the man became a living person.
    (KJV) And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    Genesis 2:21-22
    (NLT) So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep. While the man slept, the Lord God took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the opening. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib, and he brought her to the man.
    (KJV) And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh thereof.
    Nowhere in the Bible is there any mention of man changing from what God made us in that time, man or woman. There is not enough proof for evolution, it shouldn't really be taught in schools because it is people trying to rid the world of all who love God's views.
    Yes, I know many people who are Christian that believe in evolution, I don't really have friends in other religions but I have both atheist and agnostic friends as well.
    A lot of people I meet and talk about Jesus with are very confused about life, they get told this story about evolution in science classes and think they have to believe it. It's sad that a lie is spreading so fast and so wrongly every day.
    I believe in adaptation, it's observable, you can see God's wonder in such a small thing and it's amazing!
    God bless
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    "When I was a kid, I used to have an imaginary friend. I thought he went everywhere with me. I could talk to him and he could hear me, and he could grant me wishes and stuff too. But then I grew up, and stopped going to church."
    Jimmy Carr
    stonecutter likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,083
    Bollocks, plain and simple. Try reading a book other than the Bible for a change, there is a whole world of evidence out there that you and your ilk refuse to consider as it goes against your fairy stories. Your post smacks of nothing but anti-science preaching at best, religious trolling at worst, stop it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    We do have one common ancestor - Noah.
    No.

    After sin came into the world when Adam and Eve lived, the world became a sinful place
    No.

    and The Lord sent a great flood to wipe everyone out except Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives.
    No.

    there is more truth in one verse of the Bible than there will ever be in any of our lives.
    No.

    Genesis
    Is fiction. And bad fiction at that.

    There is not enough proof for evolution
    Only fools talk about "proof". There is, however sufficient evidence to support evolution.

    it shouldn't really be taught in schools because it is people trying to rid the world of all who love God's views.
    Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself (or at least you would be if you actually knew anything).

    It's sad that a lie is spreading so fast and so wrongly every day.
    What's really sad is that people think that evolution is a lie. Or that it's wrong.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    OMG. 2012.
    Thanks Bassoongirl34 for proving time travel is possible after all.
    I have read the Bible. I am likely more familiar with it than most preachers are. The Noah myth was taken from the other religions that existed in the world. Either from the Babylonian story of Gilgamesh or from another religion that existed before either Gilgamesh or Genesis.
    Seeing as there is no Bible before the reign of King Josiah (641–609 BC) I am thinking Gilgamesh makes the most sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    It makes me sad that someone could actually believe the story of Noah was a literal one.

    Athena popped out of Zeus's head when Hephaistos hit him with a mallet. Why is THAT story so ridiculous?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    OMG. 2012.
    Thanks Bassoongirl34 for proving time travel is possible after all.
    I have read the Bible. I am likely more familiar with it than most preachers are. The Noah myth was taken from the other religions that existed in the world. Either from the Babylonian story of Gilgamesh or from another religion that existed before either Gilgamesh or Genesis.
    Seeing as there is no Bible before the reign of King Josiah (641–609 BC) I am thinking Gilgamesh makes the most sense.
    This was the one response that had any form of 'evidence' attached to it - everyone else's responses were just basic denial.
    How can a religion exist before Genesis - that is, before the beginning of time? How can the Bible flow so smoothly if it's just a lot of myths placed together?
    How could everything and everyone live in a creation without a creator? Explosions cause nothing but bad results, so why is it that this one 'big bang' created intelligent cells that knew how to become living things.
    I have thoroughly dipped into the 'scientific theory' and there is plenty of evidence missing.
    Have you observed evolution? Has anyone? How can I deny the Word of Our Lord whom I know and love?
    If you have read the Bible then you should understand this.
    God bless
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    everyone else's responses were just basic denial.

    Quite ironic coming from a cretinist who must deny reality and scientific evidence every day to continue to believe their bronze age fairy stories. How do you think God feels about people who purport to believe in Him but then deny the reality you believe he created? If it was me I'd be pretty pissed off.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    7
    Why would He create evolution if we were the way that He wanted us to be?
    Why would He not tell us if He told us everything else?
    God bless
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,083
    Why would you deny reality?
    Why would you believe one book of fairy tales over another?
    Why wouldn't you want to get an education?
    Why wouldn't you want to understand how the world you believe God created actually works?
    Why do you join a science forum to promote a ridiculous anti-science faith?
    Just why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    I have thoroughly dipped into the 'scientific theory' and there is plenty of evidence missing.
    "Thoroughly dipped"? An oxymoron.
    And the second half of that sentence shows you up as a liar when you use the word "thoroughly".
    stonecutter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,083
    Meh, as this is in pseudo I'll leave them to their ignorance and trolling. If they post in the main science areas they'll get their ass handed to them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    How can a religion exist before Genesis - that is, before the beginning of time? How can the Bible flow so smoothly if it's just a lot of myths placed together?
    Really?
    You are kidding me I think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    7
    Q1 - Reality is that God is alive and that He created the Earth and everything in and on it.
    Q2 - The Word of The Lord is not a book of 'fairy tales' but an account of God's love for us.
    Q3 - I have an education and this was the Truth I ended up at.
    Q4 - I do want to find out about the way the world God created works - earlier on, I said that I believe in adaptation, a clear indication of the fact that I do actually want to know how this wonderful gift works.
    Q5 - My faith isn't anti-science, science is good for us to learn and I have free will and I'm allowed to do what I would like to do.
    Q6 - We're here because God made us, that's why.

    Dywyddyr - I meant delved, however, you understood it. Why comment on the way that I write things rather than what I write about?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    Q1 - Reality is that God is alive and that He created the Earth and everything in and on it.
    Supported by no evidence at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    Q2 - The Word of The Lord is not a book of 'fairy tales' but an account of God's love for us.
    Opinion. I could say the same thing of any of the works of Homer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    Q3 - I have an education and this was the Truth I ended up at.
    Then your education failed you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    Q4 - I do want to find out about the way the world God created works - earlier on, I said that I believe in adaptation, a clear indication of the fact that I do actually want to know how this wonderful gift works.
    No. You want to find out some cherry-picked scientific conclusions that don't conflict too harshly with the conclusion you have already reached. Anything that doesn't fit nicely into your puzzle of lies and myths will be denied without any logical reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    Q5 - My faith isn't anti-science, science is good for us to learn and I have free will and I'm allowed to do what I would like to do.
    If your faith causes you to deny accepted mainstream science heavily supported by evidence and centuries of data, then it is INDEED anti-science. Simply because you are willing to accept nuggets of science that don't offend you does not mean you are not anti-science. I would go a step further and suggest that your faith is causing you to be anti-reason and anti-rationale.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    Q6 - We're here because God made us, that's why.
    This statement is supported by substantially less evidence than evolution, yet you accept it because you want to. Science does not offer us pretty answers or comforting conclusions. If you want to stick with your pleasant fairy tales, science probably isn't for you. Some of us choose to accept reality and that which can be demonstrated as plausible.

    EDIT: I feel I should clarify the animosity in my post. I have no problem with religion and creationism. People are free to believe whatever they desire so long as they do not harm others or impinge upon their liberties. My problem is when people try to support their faith by bastardizing science. It is offensive to people like me who work hard to build the conclusions that you pick apart to support your little fantasy.
    John Galt, PhDemon and stonecutter like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Which God?

    Why THAT God, specifically?

    Why don't you believe in any of the hundreds of other Gods?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    Dywyddyr - I meant delved, however, you understood it. Why comment on the way that I write things rather than what I write about?
    Er, doesn't the fact that I pointed out that it was an oxymoron indicate that I hadn't understood what you meant?
    And, THEREFORE, don't you think that I wasn't so much "commenting on the way you write" as wondering how the hell you could think "thoroughly" was a suitable adjective for "dipped" 1?

    As for the rest...
    Q1 - Reality is that God is alive and that He created the Earth and everything in and on it.
    Assumption. Unsupported.
    2 - The Word of The Lord is not a book of 'fairy tales' but an account of God's love for us.
    Assumption. Unsupported.
    Q3 - I have an education and this was the Truth I ended up at.
    As Flick pointed: it failed you.
    Q4 - I do want to find out about the way the world God created works - earlier on, I said that I believe in adaptation, a clear indication of the fact that I do actually want to know how this wonderful gift works.
    Here's a handy hint: you don't learn about the way the world works by calling scientific findings "lies" and "wrong" without hard evidence.
    Q5 - My faith isn't anti-science, science is good for us to learn and I have free will and I'm allowed to do what I would like to do.
    Of course you're not anti-science. That's why you characterise evolution as "lies and wrong".
    Q6 - We're here because God made us, that's why.
    Assumption. Unsupported.
    PS, not one of those was a Question.

    1 Although I will, without doubt, comment on the way you write IF I consider your usage and/ or terminology to be imprecise.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    Q5 - My faith isn't anti-science, science is good for us to learn and I have free will and I'm allowed to do what I would like to do.
    Good! Do you think your beliefs would prevent you from learning more about evolution and abiogenesis?

    Have you observed evolution? Has anyone?
    Yes. We have seen a dozen species evolve into new species in the time we've been watching them.

    How can I deny the Word of Our Lord whom I know and love?
    If you have read the Bible then you should understand this.
    I've read the Bible quite a bit - but I think it's a mistake to think that it is a science book, rather than the oral tradition of a people who share a common belief. Oral traditions can drift over the years, and even once it was written down, transcription and translation errors can creep in.

    Simple example. Was man created before or after farm animals? What does Genesis say?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    [How could everything and everyone live in a creation without a creator?
    Why not? If the universe has always existed, then no creator is required.

    Explosions cause nothing but bad results, so why is it that this one 'big bang' created intelligent cells that knew how to become living things.
    1. The big bang was not an explosion. (It is a description of the universe we live in.)

    2. It didn't create intelligent cells.

    Don't you think it would be wise to learn a little more about the Universe your God Created before making incorrect statements like this? This sort of pride in your own limited knowledge is rather worrying.

    I have thoroughly dipped into the 'scientific theory' and there is plenty of evidence missing.
    Very clearly you haven't.

    Have you observed evolution? Has anyone?
    Yes.
    Observed Instances of Speciation
    Some More Observed Speciation Events

    How can I deny the Word of Our Lord whom I know and love?
    You don't need to. There is no inherent contradiction between Christianity and science. The only problem is with a warped misinterpretation of the Bible made by people who think that if there is a contradiction between what they think the Bible says and reality (i.e. Creation), then reality (i.e. God's work) must be wrong. This is blasphemous.

    BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony

    If you have read the Bible then you should understand this.
    It appears that you have misread it. Or, at least, misunderstood it.

    God bless
    And you. Maybe there is hope for you if you have come here with a truly open mind and an open heart.
    Flick Montana and samsmoot like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    PS, not one of those was a Question.
    Why would they bother asking questions when they do not want answers.
    John Galt likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    7
    So do you believe you're just some kind of machine put here with no purpose?
    If The Big Bang didn't create intelligent cells then how did these cells come about?
    Farm animals came first in Genesis. Adam was given rule over them but we need to look after them (Jonah 4:11, Psalm 104)
    I believe in my God and not any other God because He is the true God. How can I deny somebody I know?
    Many of the instances on the two websites were not evolution - plants had changed but this comes under adaptation. There was no change of 'kind'.
    I do have friends who believe in the Bible and evolution but I am not going to start to believe in or pretend to believe in evolution just so that more people follow Christ. If I was evangelizing and somebody asked me if I believe in evolution I would tell them no and why not.
    There is life and emotion inside each of us, that's our soul.
    We know the difference between right and wrong, who made right and wrong?
    Look at how the world was created, there had to have been some design put into it. It's amazing! It really could not have come about by chance.
    God bless
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    Farm animals came first in Genesis.
    Genesis 2:18-19 proves you're lying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    So do you etc etc.


    Just one question: why did you sign up to a science forum when you're clearly not interested in, and ignorant of, science?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    7
    Genesis 1:20-26
    20
    And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

    24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
    26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

    27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.


    28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

    Animals came first in Genesis.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    7
    Darwin indicated, quite correctly, that if his theory were true, there should be very large numbers of “in-between types” found as fossils. If the forelimb of a reptile, for instance, has turned into the wing of a bird, why don’t we find a series of fossils showing these stages—part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale, part-feather—one gradually giving way to the next?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,083
    Ah, why are you anti-science religious trolls so un-original. This "argument" has been debunked so often that you must either be very dishonest or very stupid to still put forward this crap as a valid argument. Try a bit of intellectual honesty and learn how evolution works. It's obvious you are only here to preach or troll you are going on ignore with the other loons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    Darwin indicated, quite correctly
    You have already shown that YOU are not qualified to comment on the correctness or otherwise of Darwin's writings.

    If the forelimb of a reptile, for instance, has turned into the wing of a bird, why don’t we find a series of fossils showing these stages—part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale, part-feather—one gradually giving way to the next?
    Tell me, is it hard work to remain so ignorant?
    You clearly have no idea what an "in-between type" actually is.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    If The Big Bang didn't create intelligent cells then how did these cells come about?
    The big bang didn't create anything except the environment where cells and then higher animals could evolve.

    I believe in my God and not any other God because He is the true God. How can I deny somebody I know?
    No one is asking you to. (Well, I'm not anyway.) I'm just asking you to open your mind and look at the world around you, instead of being blinded by your misunderstanding of the Bible. Surely you must accept that reality (created by God) is a more reliable guide than human interpretation of a Book that has been repeatedly copied and translate by humans?

    There is life and emotion inside each of us, that's our soul.
    We know the difference between right and wrong, who made right and wrong?
    Believing that is not incompatible with evolution.

    Look at how the world was created, there had to have been some design put into it. It's amazing! It really could not have come about by chance.
    It is amazing. And it didn't come about by chance.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    Darwin indicated, quite correctly, that if his theory were true, there should be very large numbers of “in-between types” found as fossils.
    There are.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by The Bible
    Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
    See, I can look up Bible quotes too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34
    Look at how the world was created, there had to have been some design put into it. It's amazing! It really could not have come about by chance.

    Intelligent Design:
    Designing salt water oceans for humans who have no gills.
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; February 25th, 2014 at 04:25 PM. Reason: See post #71.
    Daecon likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Bible
    Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
    See, I can look up Bible quotes too.

    Heretic! You took them out of the context!
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Intelligent Design:
    Designing salt water oceans for humans who have no gills.
    Precisely!
    And what about eggs?
    They're totally the wrong shape to fit on a slice of bread for sandwiches.
    Any smart god would have known what shape sliced bread would be and planned accordingly.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange
    It is amazing. And it didn't come about by chance.

    Intelligent Design:
    Designing salt water oceans for humans who have no gills.
    I wasn't suggesting ID, just pointing out that is not "random".
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange
    It is amazing. And it didn't come about by chance.

    Intelligent Design:
    Designing salt water oceans for humans who have no gills.
    I wasn't suggesting ID, just pointing out that is not "random".

    I agree with that; I made the error of including your response in the quote, whilst post #67 was supposed to be a response to member Bassoongirl34, as (s)he hinted at ID. I have fixed it in post #67.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    So do you believe you're just some kind of machine put here with no purpose?
    Not at all. But we define our purpose. Some of us are here to build things; some are here to write books or music, and some are here to just live out their lives. (I assume that if a priest told you you had to be a nun you might not appreciate it - even if he claimed to have a hotline to God.)

    If The Big Bang didn't create intelligent cells then how did these cells come about?
    Well, cells aren't intelligent. But brains (made up of cells) have a pretty clear path of evolution, all the way from flatworms (the most primitive neural systems out there) to mammals.

    Farm animals came first in Genesis. Adam was given rule over them but we need to look after them (Jonah 4:11, Psalm 104)
    It's pretty clear that farm animals came AFTER man. First God created Man, before any plants or herbs:

    "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

    Then he created rivers, then he created the Garden of Eden. Only then did he create farm animals:

    "And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them."

    Many of the instances on the two websites were not evolution - plants had changed but this comes under adaptation.
    That is evolution. In ten generations an arm gets longer or thinner and helps you swing from branches. In a hundred generations it gets flat and helps you land when you jump from branches. In a thousand generations it gets so flat it lets you glide from branches; in a million generations it lets you fly. It has become a wing, through the process of slow adaptation. We know this the same way we know that microerosion (which forms gullies in dirt roads) is the same process as macroerosion (which forms the Grand Canyon.)

    There is life and emotion inside each of us, that's our soul.
    Agreed. There is also life and emotion inside apes, and dogs, and even rats. They may not be as smart as us but they have very similar emotions and drives.

    We know the difference between right and wrong, who made right and wrong?
    We did. Christians thought it was right in the Middle Ages to kill Muslims. Even claimed God said to do it. Nowadays we think that's wrong - and some Muslims think that killing infidels is the right thing to do. We used to think that gay marriage was wrong; now we don't. We used to think that interracial marriage was wrong; now we don't. We used to think that slavery was right. Heck, even the Bible gave instructions on how to sell your daughter into slavery. Nowadays we think that's wrong. That's because we decide what is right and wrong.

    Look at how the world was created, there had to have been some design put into it. It's amazing! It really could not have come about by chance.
    The more we learn, the more we understand it did.

    Darwin indicated, quite correctly, that if his theory were true, there should be very large numbers of “in-between types” found as fossils.
    There are.

    If the forelimb of a reptile, for instance, has turned into the wing of a bird, why don’t we find a series of fossils showing these stages—part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale, part-feather—one gradually giving way to the next?
    We do.

    Sinosauropteryx - reptile with feathers
    Sinornithosaurus - reptile with feathers and long arms
    Archaeopteryx - first reptile with feathers and wings
    Yanornis - first bird that you would call a bird (flapping flight)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    So do you believe you're just some kind of machine put here with no purpose?
    Why is this always the last volley fired in desperation by creationists?

    Is your ego so vast that you need an entire universe created just for you by an omniscient being in order to satisfy it?

    We have no more or less "purpose" than any other living creature on this planet and I see no reason why we should.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    No it is because their concept of God is too small and puny. A scientist who believes in God, believes is a vastly more grand and powerful being than the pip squeak that creationists believe in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassoongirl34 View Post
    Q1 - Reality is that God is alive and that He created the Earth and everything in and on it.
    Then he failed terribly.

    People dying from natural disasters, earthquakes, tsunami's, cyclones and hurricanes...

    Not to mention illness, disease, plagues, pain and horror..

    Q2 - The Word of The Lord is not a book of 'fairy tales' but an account of God's love for us.
    Smiting people, slaughtering the thousands of first born sons, plagues, giant floods.. Nothing says love like mass murder and genocide.

    Q3 - I have an education and this was the Truth I ended up at.
    Home school?

    Or was your educator a house fern?
    Q4 - I do want to find out about the way the world God created works - earlier on, I said that I believe in adaptation, a clear indication of the fact that I do actually want to know how this wonderful gift works.
    There's this thing called science. Amazing stuff. You should put the Bible down and read some science books sometimes.
    Q5 - My faith isn't anti-science, science is good for us to learn and I have free will and I'm allowed to do what I would like to do.
    And sadly, provide you with the technology to come online onto internet forums to preach.
    Q6 - We're here because God made us, that's why.
    I'm here because my parents had sex and I popped out of my mother's belly 9 months later.

    Your version of this is all pink unicorns, winged angels and trumpets heralding God's creation - ie - me.

    Reality and science dictate that my parents had sex, my father's sperm traveled up into my mother's uterus during the fertile period of her menstrual cycle and one sperm inserted itself into an egg, fertilising it, which then traveled down the fallopian tube as cell division took place, implanted into the uterus, and so on and so forth...

    As I said, science, reality is amazing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. New evidence: Evolution debunked
    By lifeshot123 in forum Biology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 24th, 2012, 01:20 AM
  2. Evidence for Evolution
    By Golkarian in forum Biology
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: February 9th, 2009, 10:49 AM
  3. Evidence of macro-evolution
    By BumFluff in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 25th, 2008, 05:07 AM
  4. Fossil Evidence says evolution is false
    By ghost7584 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: June 6th, 2007, 12:18 PM
  5. Please explain some of the evidence of Evolution
    By Wierzenskizzle in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: July 11th, 2005, 07:56 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •