Evidence for Evolution

[Insidious Rex]

Trap is once again set... will Insidious take the bait...

The trouble is if I respond you wont have to respond to anything Ive brought up here that was in fact relevant to the conversation. Ive already shown WITH DEFINITIONS AND ABUNDANT EVIDENCE what evolution is so the onus is on you to continue to lead us away from the stuff you cant explain and tell me why Im oh so wrong.

[Rían]

from your last post : "trap", and "you wont have to respond to anything Ive brought up here that was in fact relevant to the conversation", which is untrue.

from the post before that : "spin", "play ignorant", and "divert a conversation from something that is crippling to your way of thinking." (which is saying that I'm intellectually dishonest, which I"m not )

from the post before that : "diversion tactics" - again, a charge that I"m intellectually dishonest, which I'm not.

from the post before that : "petty tit for tat meaningless contest" and "avoiding the real issues I bring up which you know you have no response for" - the second is doubly untrue, because I never avoid issues and I do have a response.

from the post before that: "petty word games", "throwing out completely irrelevant technicalities" (IMO, they are NOT irrelevant, so I will post them and discuss them).

from the post before that : "changed your tune" (again, a false charge of intellectual dishonesty), "acting all smug and special and playing your gotcha word games", "name dropping game".

etc. etc.

I will be glad to discuss this interesting topic with you if you change your tone towards me.

[Lotesse]

Hi, you guys! I'm not interested in joining this debate, but I saw an article about evolution and thought I'd paste the link here for you guys if anybody feels like reading it...
http://www.calendarlive.com/books/cl...ck=pacifictime

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think that human eyesight works amazingly, incredibly well. I think that it's hard to argue that something that works as amazingly well as it does is not "perfect - things like tonsils and the appendix spring to mind. These were once thought to be useless, until we found out their use. Unless all the info is in, which will never happen in science , I don't see how you can claim the eye isn't perfect. I think a better question is given how amazingly well the eye works, and how amazingly complex its workings are, is it reasonable to think that it could have evolved?

I do agree that the human eye is an amazing thing. However I do claim that the eye isn't perfect and Christians who say that god made the eye and everything else perfect can easily be proven wrong. Our bodies aren't perfect. Consider the lense of the eye. In humans, the lense is quite badly shaped when compared to say the lense of an eagle. Scientists are certain that in the future, we will possess the laser technology necessary to polish the lense so that we can see just as well as eagles. If the lense was created perfect, improvements would be impossible.

See many things about us aren't perfect and it is simply wrong to state otherwise.

[Spock]

Cease and desist with the personal idiom attacks.

If you're too diverse opinions cannot be discussed without these then this thread will be closed.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I do agree that the human eye is an amazing thing. However I do claim that the eye isn't perfect and Christians who say that god made the eye and everything else perfect can easily be proven wrong. Our bodies aren't perfect. Consider the lense of the eye. In humans, the lense is quite badly shaped when compared to say the lense of an eagle. Scientists are certain that in the future, we will possess the laser technology necessary to polish the lense so that we can see just as well as eagles. If the lense was created perfect, improvements would be impossible.

See many things about us aren't perfect and it is simply wrong to state otherwise.

I don't claim God made us "perfect". If that were the case, then we wouldn't die or get sick! And I know from personal experience that God does great works in the human heart through things like sickness and sorrow - these things present great opportunities to love others. It's clear that God thinks the heart/soul is vastly more important than the body (for the heart/soul is what is eternal), and I think this world's design reflects that. He says our heart/soul is what lives forever, and our bodies' makeup reflects that emphasis, IMO - our imperfect (altho amazing) bodies allow great works in our heart/soul to take place.

I do claim, however, that we're very intricately and intelligently designed, and moreover that the indications of design are stronger than the indications of chance development.

Moreover, I recall claims from certain evolutionary-minded people that showing something against evolution doesn't prove creationism ... a fair-minded, non-biased person might perhaps think that that statement could go both directions ...

Spock - request noted; PM sent

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Moreover, I recall claims from certain evolutionary-minded people that showing something against evolution doesn't prove creationism ... a fair-minded, non-biased person might perhaps think that that statement could go both directions ...

not in terms of scientific theory... creationism can not be theorized about in scientific terms... one must accept "a creator" for there to be a theory... accepting something that can not be seen or inferred is not science

for evolution, all you have to accept is that both time and the physical universe exist... which, as far as we can tell, do

[Lotesse]

****

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

for evolution, all you have to accept is that both time and the physical universe exist... which, as far as we can tell, do

true, but you have to believe they always existed. BTW, that's against the fundamental laws of science.

[Lotesse]

How is the concept of infinity contrary to the fundamental laws of science, Curubethion?

[Count Comfect]

Curubethion - by definition time has existed forever, because there is no time it did not exist. It's like saying "When in your life were you dead?"

[Rían]

But infinite recursion is not a solution to the time question. I think there needs to be something outside of time in order for time to exist.

Reminds me of a post by Wayfarer long ago:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Ethics, like software, abhors recursion. ]: )
http://www.ubersoft.net/d/20030324.html

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't claim God made us "perfect". If that were the case, then we wouldn't die or get sick!

I didn't say you specifically claimed that. But some people do.

Originally Posted by Curubethion

true, but you have to believe they always existed. BTW, that's against the fundamental laws of science.

No you don't. No it isn't.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

true, but you have to believe they always existed. BTW, that's against the fundamental laws of science.

science is about studying and theorizing about things we can observe... it accepts the fact that there are things beyond the realm of current understanding (and maybe even future understanding)

evolution of life on earth, for example, proposes a theory of how the earth went from a molten rock circling the sun to the planet teeming with life we see today... a question like "how did the universe come about?" is irrelavant to this theory, because we can imply from observation that a) the earth had no life on it at one point and b) the earth has life on it now and c) time is an aspect of our universe and things change over time (how much they can change is the rub, which is why evolution is a "theory")... we can theorize how we got from a) to b) without worrying about the outside factors like "how did time start?" because we know it exists now and probably did then too

creationism is not science because there is no observable or inferrable cause, or c) (from observation, as opposed to faith)... a) and b) are the same, but c) (a "creator" in this case) can not be observed or implied from present-day observation

as i've said before... this does not make one right and the other wrong... but it does make one science and the other not

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

science is about studying and theorizing about things we can observe.

creationism is not science because there is no observable or inferrable cause, or c) (from observation, as opposed to faith)... a) and b) are the same, but c) (a "creator" in this case) can not be observed or implied from present-day observation

Evolution has no observable or inferrable cause either, i've been trying to make this point for a long time that the study of origins itself is unscientific because of the lack of observation.

[Count Comfect]

The inferred cause of evolution is environmental stress... which we know exists from observing living creatures adapt, and by studying fossils.

[rohirrim TR]

so basically there is no inferred cause for evolution, why do you guys keep repeating what i already said?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

Evolution has no observable or inferrable cause either, i've been trying to make this point for a long time that the study of origins itself is unscientific because of the lack of observation.

the "observable cause" is physical change in populations of living things over time, which both sides admit to... they just differ on degree

there is the macro-micro debate... just because you see small changes in organisms over a short time period does not mean you can have major ones over a long time period... this is why it is a theory... scientific... debateable by it's very nature

there is no "small act of a creator" in the present day world you can infer from... and no debate either... you either accept it, or you do not... faith, not science

[rohirrim TR]

you have to possess the same degree of faith to believe in the idea of evolution. Really evolution and creation both belong in a religion thread, because when it comes down to it they both depend on faith.

[Count Comfect]

Rohirrim, what is your definition of faith? The theological definition, which should be applied to a question of whether evolution is a religion, from the OED includes
"The spiritual apprehension of divine truths, or of realities beyond the reach of sensible experience or logical proof."
Which evolution directly rejects. The reach of sensible experience or logical proof is the very basis of science, and of evolutionary theory.