Do you think the theory of evolution is supported?

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc Well edgewater since you can't be specific, I can. Since you want to talk about the Microrganic world, lets use an example "all" are readily aware of. What about the "flu?" Every year we have to be concerned about the flu? Does the flu become an entirely different and new organism? Not! Flu like the example of dogs has Micro changes or evolution. Yes changes in viruses and bacteria is a problem for humanity, however those changes that do occur are changes within a specific organism or kind.

Not correct. Although something like the flu does mutate into different "strains" without any speciation occurring, we know from laboratory observation that speciation can occur in microorganisms in a relatively short time and we also know that this does happen in the real world, with entirely new diseases appearing all the time, like clockwork. Are you at all aware of how many bacteriological or virus diseases which have no precedent at all that have cropped up in the last, say, half-century, or even just in the last couple of decades?

Point 2, the changes you say happened under laboratory conditions? Sounds like Intelligence is involved.

There's not much intelligence involved in observation. A lab simply implies controlled conditions that minimize external influences, which, if anything, should reduce the chance of something like speciation occurring, not enhance it.

Moreover, intelligence alone doesn't magically produce results by some sort of telekinetic superpower or other gobbledygook hocus-pocus. Specific actions produce results. When these actions mimic circumstances in the natural world, they will produce the same results, regardless of whether intelligence or nature is behind them. If I use my intelligence to drop a 5lb stone 3 feet onto your hand in a laboratory, its still going to hurt just as much as if a 5lb stone falls from 3 feet onto your hand because it was knocked down off a ledge by an elephant fart out in the jungle. Of course, it's difficult to argue with the superstitious mind, which is likely to attribute the elephant fart to gods, spirits, mischievous elves, a witch's curse, etc.

Its still "bacteria," its still an "ameoba."

Oh God. That's like saying monkeys and cows are the same thing because they're both mammals. Or that a tree and a carrot are the same species: plant. Lol.

We have been through this one. Mice are still mice, would that be a Micro evolution or change?

Nope. See above. The test for speciation is not whether they are still "small and furry looking" its far more precise. Can they interbreed with their former reproductive community? Yes? Then they are just a breed. No? Then they are, by most definitions, a new species. This isn't even necessary in many instances; few people would agree with the assessment that a St. Bernard and a timber wolf are members of the same species, but they can interbreed.

 

You seem to be very, very confused about the hierarchy of taxonomy, it seems like you don't recognize any difference between family, genus, and species. I have this sense that you wouldn't be satisfied until you saw something switch kingdoms, like a fungus turning into a polar bear. (Most) mice are all of the same genus, namely Mus, not the same species. Within Mus are four different subgenera and up to 40 different species. Not all mice even belong to the same genus or even the same family; most old world mice don't even belong in the Rodentia family but in the Muridae family. Other mice within the Rodentia family are not of the Mus genera, but belong to other genera (in the US, the deer mouse and white footed mouse are of the Peromyscus genera). All this, before even getting to the level of species among mice.

So, presented with speciation changes, all you've done is assert that speciation is "micro" and you want a change of genera, family, or possibly even order before it qualifies as "macro" which seems to be some weird folk classification you've invented on the spot.

If you're thinking that evolution means that you can watch a onion bulb turn into a whale, then you're clearly at a disadvantage in comprehending the concept.

Edited by edgewaters

Evolution is largely driven by mutations. When talking about microrganisms this is much, much more readily apperent.

As apposed to general knowledge, some bacteria actually have anti-drug tendencies before being treated with the drug. That is to say, they dont become resistant when they encounter the drug, but they have been before they encountered it. And this is not due to "intelligence" but to mutations. Mutations are random and very rare. However in comparison to humans, mutations in bacteria take place at a much greater rate, and by accident the bacteria become resistant, not because they were destined to be...

whether you like it or not, you get new mutations every day, even while sleeping, this is why with age, cancers become so much more prevalent (among with many, many other reasons).

Luckly most mutations are recessive, so if you have a single good copy you will be fine. And mutation is also the reason why genetic diseases plagued European noble families, through intermarriages, the chance of a person being born from the same genetic family is high, and the chance of getting a recessive mutations is also much higher


Edited by mamikon

Cuauhtemoc, please, could you make your posts a little bit shorter! Just your own ideas and expressed short and straight, without quoting the Bible or something else. It's far to difficult to read a whole of your post, you make them so long and filled with quotes that I sometimes can't get a grasp on what you want to say. And try not to repeat yourself, please, just post a link to your previous post.

Well I did some research on some of the names I've gotten from the list. Phil Skell was always a person to shoot down evolution. He said he never believed in it. And one student at PSU said he will goto lectures about evolution, but never speaks a word. He is a Chemist, never really studied further into anthrology from what I understand.

I also found out from another site that was talking about the Discovery Institute's filing a amicus curiae ("friend of the court"), which 85 members off the other list signed were mostly from Evangelical Universities. And here's a quote from the man who did the research,

Two of the signers, for instance, are professors at Biola University <http://www.biola.edu/about/>, which describes itself as "a private Christian university ... based on evangelical Christianity". Two others are on the faculty of Huntington University <http://www.huntington.edu/>, whose website says it is "an evangelical Christian college." Then there's Dordt College <http://www.dordt.edu/>, a "private, Reformed, Christian college" which offers a "biblical, Christ-centered education;" Northwestern College <http://nwc.nwc.edu/> (not to be confused with Northwestern University), which "takes a Biblically Christian ethical and moral position and is theologically conservative in doctrine;" Grove City College <http://www.gcc.edu/>, a "top-ranked affordable Christian College;" Malone College <http://www.malone.edu/>, whose mission is "to provide students with an education based on biblical faith;" and Union College <http://www.ucollege.edu/ucscripts/public/template/main.a sp> which believes it "develops an eternal perspective with assurance in Christ" in its students, who should "operate from a Christ-centered perspective."

So you have 154 biologist, 76 chemist, and 63 physicists.

Phil Skell was a chemist who didn't work at a christian college or university from what I found in my own research. He is one who will not debate against a anthrapologist, he turned one down after he was asked to do so infront of people. He is also a self proclaimed creationist and seems like he always has been from what I gathered. So, there were only nine signitures out of 85 that signed this amicus curiae from the Discovery Istitute(where the other signitures are from) that worked a non-Christian school. 38 of them were not even currently employed at any institution. These are people that signed your Dissent from Darwinism list!

Also one of them didn't realize what he was signing and doesn't agree with the discovery institue, here's what it says,

Finally: One more thing before I close out this post. In my continung colloquy with the folks at Dispatches from the Culture Wars <http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/more_dissem bling_from_the_di_o.php>, I learned that at least one person who signed the Discovery Institute's "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism <http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100Scientists Ad.pdf>" did so without understanding what the organization is about, that its purpose is to displace Darwinian evolutionary theory. He's Bob Davidson of Bellevue, Washington, and he now says his inclusion on the list is a mistake <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/20024503 29_danny24.html>: "It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," he says. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it." Davidson began to believe the institute is an "elaborate, clever marketing program" to tear down evolution for religious reasons. He read its writings on intelligent design � the notion that some of life is so complex it must have been designed � and found them lacking in scientific merit. It's worthwhile keeping in mind that it's certainly possible that people can sign such statements without being entirely aware of what they mean and to what purpose they will be put. If they later determine that they disagree with what they've signed, or the way it's being used, it's incumbent on them to publicly disagree and disavow their signature, just as Davidison has done.

here's a link to the guy who did research on them, http://unfutz.blogspot.com/2005/10/kitzmiller-reading-signer s.html

Your crediability has fallen. Most of these proclaimed scientist, 293, which some were always creationist, some don't even have jobs, and the other 207 we don't even know what field they are from honestly don't prove a thing now. You pulled a quick...

Search, then give the evidence for Macro Evolution. Why have you not given evidence?

Because you say DNA studies are to early and you throw away 600 million years of fossil records and don't take into account the bacterial traces also. You want living proof, but you dismiss even the changes of colors or suddenly gaining wings found in insects as proof. If thats not change, I don't know what is.

He cited for example a study in another thread, the Genesis thread. He gave an example of a study on "salmon," and thought it supported Macro Evolution, however due to the fact that speciation was occuring in 60-70 years, the "Media" "overreacted," because that did not agree with Darwinain Macro Evolutionists who contend that it takes "hundreds of thousands" of years for speciation!

Not exactly. It's really hard for me to talk to you because you twisted my words around numerous times. Life spans are not always the reason for evolution, lets get that straight, a species can keep going without ever evolving, it does not have to constantly change. They just found a Rodent 15 million years old from the Laotian Islands that I believe the squierrel evolved from. Yet it's the same exact species, it just never died out. Though it may have given birth to other species.

The salmon in this case had to change, in other words natural selection. They were put in this area in 1937, then they split. What happened is one evolved to fit the river, the other the lake. They do not prefer to breed with each other, which means they know a difference themselves.

here is a quote,

The male river fish evolved shallower bodies that are better for swimming through strong currents. The female river fish were bigger than the lake ones and able to dig deeper nests. The new evidence suggests that animals can adapt to new environments about 10 times faster than once thought.

This is what happens in science, you study and you find new information.

By the way, there is a study on fruit flies on this link also, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/979950.stm

Now these are huge chnages, but like edgewater said, your looking for a onion bulb to turn into a whale. It took us millions of years for our skulls to evolve from a flat forhead, to a large forhead and big cranium to allow our large brain. It takes millions of years to see a large change completly different from the ancestor.

Everyone note, Search is saying Macro Evolution takes "time" and I am happy for this admission!

Everyone note, he does not read my sentences completely and still has yet to answer or acknowledge my past questions and answers.

It seems you don't understand the point that I made in regards to the insect world. Macro evolution should be happening all over the place because insects have short life spands. I am sure you know how long a "fruit fly lives."

Life span is only but one factor for the last time. You won't see any major changes that you are looking for. You say smaller or larger wings aren't evolution,but just microevolution, but that is a major change! That is changing what they are and gives them different abilities. Your looking for biblical proportions to happen which isn't always the case!

Though in london, it took one hundred years for a mosquito to evolve. Some mosquitos, which only would feed on birds at the time, went down in a newly built subway in 1900. In 1998, it was found those that went down in the subway don't feed on birds anymore, and their DNA evolved and changed so much that they can't even breed with the prvious species.

Search, do you realize what you just said? The mechanisms for Darwinian Macro Evolution are "HYPOTHESIS" only.

No, I didn't say anything, your just twisting my words. You do understand that in science, scientist explore how things work right? It's accepted that evolution is fact otherwise it wouldn't be called a Theory. Different scientist make hypothesis to explore how things work in a theory. Don't twist my words, if you don't understand what I'm saying you shouldn't even be having this discussion. Or atleast assuming something entirly different without asking what I mean.

Remember the quote from the Macro Evolutionist in my earlier posts to you who admitted the "fossil record" does not support Macro Evolution but Intelligent Design

No I don't, and because one person says it doesn't mean it's true. I'll believe the studies of thousands of scientist before I believe one person who isn't in the field.

Search, EVERYONE can read our posts! I have never referred to the Lamarkian theory of Evolution!

Once again, you misunderstood... I'm honestly serious on this question, not trying to put anything against you in anyway or form, but I have to ask, is English your first language? Again, I'm not trying to insult you or your intelligence, I'm asking with all serousness. I don't know if you don't understand what I'm saying or are honestly twisting my words, so I have to ask.

Lamarckism says that by a parent doing strenuous work, like I gave the example of the Giraffe, that it will immediatly begin to gain traits quickly. That the evolution you keep trying to ask about it seems goes along with this idea.You keep asking me to explain why there isn't any large changes in in the Fruit Fly experiment. One reason is they are in a very controled enviroment(atleast from the lack of info you gave me), so the ones that can only survive a certain enviroment where the others would die out doesn't happen. You have to remember that one fly has about 100 offspring, maybe more, I'm not exactly sure how many eggs one fly lays. Only a few will have mutations that would fit a enviroment that isn't the norm for them, but they won't go on to change the entire population when the original DNA is still the dominant. The original DNA would have to be completely killed off in this experiment before you could "SEE" large enough changes to make it not a fly anymore, but the DNA may still change to create news species of fly.

Essentially, the Fruit Fly expieriment would be like what we did with dogs if we could exaggerate their traits quickly. We forced evolved them making them take on different traits. Huskies can live in -26 below celcius weather while a Chihuahua couldn't last at all in that sort of temperature. Huskies have two different coats of fur and different personality traits then a Chihuahua also.

Just like I never said 6000 years for the earth age.

No, but alot of Christians do. They also believe Noah's Ark and the biblical flood happened about 5000 years ago from what I gathered. And they say they got this by fitting timelines in the bible together.

Now your saying I am critizing Lamark!

No I didn't, the arguements you used and the answers you seem to be looking for seem to go with Lamarckism. You wanted immediate answers for the reason the fruit flies didn't evolve. Without natural selection that would drastically prove the old traits obselete, then you won't get the huge changes you look for. And even if that was the case, it'd still take quite a few generation for them to make a huge noticable change. Insects wear their skeleton on the outside(so to speak), that might be enough for them to not be able to make a change on the outside to weather freezing temperatures. Though some bugs have a inside change that allows them to freeze and live due to chemicals, and thats a DNA trait.

By saying I am not addressing Darwin's theory indicates some desparation on your part in another area.

No it doesn't, I made a observation that your looking for huge changes without huge outside influences such as the fruit fly expierment where it seems your looking for the fly to turn into a bee. That'd be Lamarckism and not Darwin's Theory where a number of factors need to take place.

Search, do you not realize what your are saying? You believe in "LAMARKIAN" evolution?

Again, that is what you assume or your twisting my words. It was a example of Lamarckism, and nothing else.

This is truly amazing my friend Search. Lamarkian evolution is not accepted by anyone today!

No, whats truely amazing is how quickly you jump to conclusions. And your right, it isn't widly accepted, I only brought it up because it seems thats the evolution your attacking. Your looking for quick changes due to the parents actions, atleast thats the only way it could happen with that expierment or what kind of answers your looking to get from me. Darwin's theory says natural selection as one way, without having any idea on how the study was done, and you continuously asking why they didn't change into a different insect, you sound as though you are talking about Lamarckism, you've gave me no real information on the study, just like I'm still waiting on the names of those horses from National Geographic.

Search, Darwin's theory takes "MILLIONS" of years? Search your in a corner, you've put yourself in a corner my friend, maybe you can't perceive it but others reading our thread can. Time is the answer you say and that is why Darwinian Macro Evolution is not seen as it takes millions of years.

I didn't put myself in a corner. You want a example of right now a fish turning into a frog within a couple of years. Natural Selection can't make extreme actions like that. But can create a Fish with different traits within a few thousand years.

One fish, the cichlid fish found it's way to a lake in Africa 12,400 years ago. Over time the food in the lake started to become scarce, and the species evolved into over a hundred different species. Some evolved wide mouths, others large lips, and one species evolved teeth like spears. They started out as carbon copies, and in 12 thousand years, a geological blink, created different species. They evolved because those who didn't have the means to survive to pass on traits died off. Over 12 thousand years, their features became more and more exaggerated. It took time, and it took a reason. A number of factors contributed to why they evolved. With the fruit flies, there weren't any strong reasons from what I gather, and the only way they could have evolved the way you want them is Lamarckism.

Understand now?

The fruit fly was chosen for these experiments because they only live "10" days. These studies on fruit flies had been done since the 1906! The result of these fruit fly studies? Micro change! How many life times is that Search since 1906?

I don't even know what the scientist did for the expierment. It sounds as though he only caged them in one area. Do to the amount of offspring one fly has, the original DNA would remain dominant.

From what I understand, Humans haven't been evolving much either since we create our own enviroments to fit us. Maybe in a couple million years there will be a difference, but we won't notice anything drastically different now or for a thousand years.

Search, oh my, is this science? Your an example of Micro Evolution from your parents? Not! Your an example of "inheritance."

Your right, inheritance, exactly how evolution works. Look at dogs, they started from wolves, and now we have all kind of breeds, some even have webbed toes to swim, others better hearing, different coats to survive different elements. All inheritance, yet huge changes.

What adaptation did you undergo for micro evolution to occur? Search, please.

Gene's continue to change, I've got a mix from my father and mother. Me and you have extremely different DNA. If there were no changes, then we would all be inbreds. But small mutations do happen over time in DNA also.

The point stands Search, just think about it. You do not accept the Multi-regional theory, it does not make sense to you, as you said earlier.

I believe that modern man came from a isolated population of Homo Sapiens, atleast thats from the studies I read. After we evolved in Africa, some moved out and sub-species of Homo Sapien evolved like Cro-Magnon and Homo Sapian Idaltu and numerous others. We may have gained traits from the, like Europeans may have Cro-Magnon genes, but multiregional evolution is not the reason modern man came about.

Both are based on fossils and artists renditions!

The only thing the artist could mess up is skin color. By comparing bones we can see they are our ancestors, we can even tell what age they died in. There isn't much we can't tll by studying bones anymore.

Its pure speculation,

and inteligent design isn't? Evolution has far more facts for it then the idea a supreme being ever existed.

So I'll ask a few questions I've been waiting for.

1. Can I have the names of the horse fossils.

2. A link so that I can understand better the expierment with the fruit flies.

3.Do you now understand how the human DNA works involving when we are talking about Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve? In my last post I further described how it works and how it changes over time. I even gave you a example to see it better, and yet I have no answer to it.

4. Out of curiosity, I asked if other Homo Sapien sub-species had their own Adam and Eve's? Does the bible even mention other human species that were around not to long ago?

Edited by SearchAndDestroy

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc Originally posted by Cezar Cuauhtemoc, please, could you make your posts a little bit shorter! Just your own ideas and expressed short and straight, without quoting the Bible or something else. Hi Cezar, you need to read the posts carefully. I know you have not been doing that as I have not be quoting the Bible. I may address the issue of Adam and Eve, in the Bible, written thousands of years ago which stated humanity is descended from them in Genesis 3:20. Otherwise if you have been reading I have rarely quoted the Bible. The reason I have been saying that about Adam and Eve is DNA studies have discovered we are descended from Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve. If you read my posts, I always get to the point, however qouting is necessary to support ones position, so that one can't say its only your ideas and nothing more. That is why in research papers we are to give our sources for our information. Originally posted by Cezar It's far to difficult to read a whole of your post, you make them so long and filled with quotes that I sometimes can't get a grasp on what you want to say. And try not to repeat yourself, please, just post a link to your previous post. Cesar, you must take you time in reading. It is true such points may be difficult to grasp, but you can understand them by reading someones post I am responding to and then my post. I think then you will see the context. Thus my posts are responses to points one is attempting to make to me. If you do that then I think that will help you in grasping what is being said. It is important to use quotations to support our positions. If we don't support our positions with quotations, we are merely giving our opinion. One of the rules or maybe it is a suggestion is to use authorities to establish ones position. Repetition will "only" occur with me if the person ignores my point or if they did not understand the point that I made.

1. I've read your posts. That's  the reason for my post
2. Nice, your opinion is what really matters. Can we (humble me) have it (no quotes)?

I haven't been keeping track of what's happening in this thread - which is probably just absurd arguments brought again and again in favor of ID. I can't believe the point about "Adam" and "Eve" is still being raised again. If you read the wikipedia entries or any scientific publication on the naming of the two, they explicitly state that they were named for modern culture and not due to religion. And again, stating that the two had any relation is like picking two random people from a million and saying the two are a couple. And yet once again, the original couple does not prove anything about creationism.

By the way, a current development that you may have heard of, is the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial about teaching intelligent design in Pennsylvania schools. My university, has been publisizing the case to an extent, since the lead attorney against intelligent was an alumnus of the school. The verdict of the case was:


There was also an article published in my school's Gazette ("Intelligent Demise"), if you're interested:
http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0306/feature1.html

The important, but subtle point I want to emphasize from the quotation above is not that Intelligent Design (ID) is not religious, but that it is not scientific. The term "Intelligent Design" itself is something of debate dodge. It was created to relieve itself of direct religious connotations, and thus allowing it better access for "scientific" explanations of creationism. Of course, all of the science that it uses are complete pesudoscience, mainly out of context references brought together in a misleading way. In the court case, it was determined that Intelligent design is not science because its intentions are completely unscientific.

In serious scientific community, creationism is nearly universally rejected. (The details of evolution are not universally accepted, but the general concepts are.) In popular culture, evolution has not yet had as deep of a penetration, but as you can see, Intelligent design, which was once essential in the curriculum for centuries, is loosing its way. Teaching creationism in public schools in the U.S. was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court about two decades ago. Now, its alias under the name of "Intelligent Design" is being removed as well.

It is interesting that the proponent for ID here uses the term Intelligent Design, yet tieing it with religion. Does that mean he amits that Creationism has been declared unconstitutional for education by the US Supreme court?

Finally, I want to reiterate that creationists like to present it so that it seems like Intelligent Design has the same amount of support as evolution in the scientific community. Not true.


Edited by Imperator Invictus

I essentially agree with what you wrote. To my understanding, the concept of "Intelligent Design" was created solely to get around the use of the term "creationism" because creationism had been deemed religious. But of course, the result of the case I mentioned above is that Intelligent Design is legally considered the same as creationism.

A more accurate term to describe what Cuauhtemoc is arguing for is "Neo-Creationism," which uses modern scientific "evidence" to support creationist arguments.

However, while I think its perfectly fine that people reject evolution for their religous belief, I really dislike it when people use scientific "evidence" to try to prove creationism. I think it is a gross misuse of scientific facts. The case is similar to people's citing of out-of-context and misleading historical evidence to argue that the Holocaust did not exist.


Edited by Imperator Invictus

Do you dislike it because it proves you might be wrong?

You mean would it bother me that evolution would be proven wrong? No, why should it? It's not a culture, way of living or anything else that'd effect my life. If it's proven wrong for some reason, then thats it, just means it didn't prove anything. So no, it wouldn't bother me even alittle.

But don't think I won't defend it now, I defend it because there is way to much evidence in different fields of science and years of work done by different scientist point to it being correct. It's only a matter of finding the extreme details of it all.

Just the same with everything else. Saying that all beliefs (including evolution) are the same does not change fact.  something must be true.

Evolution isn't a belief, it's a science. It's a Theory put together through many sciences. Religions are a belif, a faith. For some reason you like to believe evolution is out to get it, which is far from the truth. They aren't even in the same catagory.

We cannot use science because we cant mix science with religion

I was reading down the list, so I guess this means we agree they shouldn't even be in conflict with one another.

It cant be true because we don't use science to prove it

There is no evidence to really look, touch, or observe in some way to prove evidence. If there was, I assure you one scientist would have tested it, good way to get publicity and money.

You tell us that we am citing historical evidence wrong and abusing science

Well I don't think much historical evidence matters unless you count fossils. But it is true, there is no doubting it. Creationist use dated work, and make wrong interpretations, one creationist gave me a site saying that Dark Matter is proof of God. That sounds pretty crazy as as the study of Dark Matter isn't advanced at all, but yet they jump to conclusions to prove another science wrong.

Yet you simply state that you are right and not give a word of evidence

You haven't been looking in this thread. I gave pages and quotes and even had to research a creationists work in this thread because he wouldn't give me any links. And some of the stuff he was telling me wasn't even true.

You say we should keep our posts as opinions only

I could be wrong, but I don't believe I said that. This forum is to discuss and argue your points.

Yet the intelectual discusion giudelines say that we need to present evidence.

Again, we showed DNA evidence and explained other parts of evolution with links. We even gave examples of observed evolution that is just brushed off as "Micro-Evolution" even though they are huge changes.

Now you dare tell us that our logic is wrong when you havnt even figured out how to use it? My temper is at its peak right now!

I could see why your getting mad, you aren't looking at the thread entirely. We answered what had to be answered, we gave evidence when it was needed. Everything in this thread was pretty much done right. Evolution is trying to explain something that happens in nature, it seems Creationist just want to prove Evolution wrong because they think it threatens their religion.

We will use science as it is one of the only ways to prove something We will use evidence, and we will use logic!

Which we have been doing all along. I still can't figure out why you creationist always have a bone to pick when evolution is being discussed? You have your rights to keep faith in whatever you want. Science isn't about faith and attachment unless ofcourse it's your life long work as a scientist, but for me it's something that explains apart of life. So far there isn't a shred of reason not to believe that it isn't true due to all the evidence and work done.

Me being not of faith was a choice that evolution never effected. Infact, science never had a part in me being a athiest. And I am willing to take a religion one day if I feel it feels right, but right now nothing says that to me, just like right now nothing says evolution isn't possible except Creationist who have something to prove.

 

Originally posted by Halevi Originally posted by El Pollo Loco .... Many people avoid that by saying that all religions are equal. This cant be right because there has to be truth. All religions could - in theory - be equally wrong.  Hence we use scientific method.

I meant beleif

Maju: If evolution isnt a belief then you cant believe it. Quite simple.

And I was refering to different people not just you

S & D Said "

One fish, the cichlid fish found it's way to a lake in Africa 12,400 years ago. Over time the food in the lake started to become scarce, and the species evolved into over a hundred different species. Some evolved wide mouths, others large lips, and one species evolved teeth like spears. They started out as carbon copies, and in 12 thousand years, a geological blink, created different species. They evolved because those who didn't have the means to survive to pass on traits died off. Over 12 thousand years, their features became more and more exaggerated. It took time, and it took a reason. A number of factors contributed to why they evolved. With the fruit flies, there weren't any strong reasons from what I gather, and the only way they could have evolved the way you want them is Lamarckism.

Understand now?

***As a one who follows the New Testiment. The Old Testiment (to me) is but a collection of legends without the sort of supporting evidence that establishes the life and words of Our Saviour. Only the Jews believe in the timeline of the Old Testiment. We were always taught that (because there were no seasons in Eden) the years were actually millenia but who knows. Certainly the argument against Intelligent design can't hinge on Jewish legends.

***In my opinion the fish in the lake were helped by God and when you say "natural" selection... I see divine intervention.

***When Darwin saw the tortoise shell adapt to the height of the shrubbery...because of selection...I saw a helping HAND

***That some are being perscecuted for believing in intelligent design does not prove it wrong...quite the contrary. I will always more quickly believe the truth of a man if he will be punished for what he says than the man who will be praised for what he says. Understand that if you can.