Evidence for Evolution

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

..what do you think those UFO's are!

swamp gas

[Spock]

The Truth Is Out There!

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by olorin hamfast

If a 3 spine stickleback had a brain larger than a wee pebble, Im sure it would tell you all how proud it is to hear such a bubbly dialogue on this diabolical subject. Sticklebacks with 3 spines (dont go to church) have evolved in thier dead end street like ponds to grow fancy spines from which they deter predators from eating them, while other no spine sticklebax may be chomped down by even the slowest froggie. The spines developed over a very short time comparitvely to wings on bi pedal reptiles... some 5000 years vs 5 million or so. Ask Dr Gould, not Dr Phil.

SEE, everyone? EVOLUTION! HAH! Thanx, olorin hamfast!

[olorin hamfast]

I am quite surprised that it is actually under debate. If any non believers have any questions, they can ask me, or meet me at the "WWE smashdown", ha ha ha. Praised be the Valar

[olorin hamfast]

Originally Posted by Spock

The Truth Is Out There!

Indeed, Mr Spock, Indeed.

[EarthBound]

"Well, maybe they don't exist according to science, Scully, but something that walks and talks like one, and, by the way, seems to be very hungry, is doing a really great impression. Maybe a loose thespian from the local actors guild with a severe gland disorder wearing an oversized shoe?"

Scully [no response]

[olorin hamfast]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

"Well, maybe they don't exist according to science, Scully, but something that walks and talks like one, and, by the way, seems to be very hungry, is doing a really great impression. Maybe a loose thespian from the local actors guild with a severe gland disorder wearing an oversized shoe?"

Scully [no response]

Keep Looking Up

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

You don't throw out science because a better theory MIGHT come along... you only throw it out (or, at least, discount it) because a better one HAS come along.

I TOTALLY disagree! You throw it out if new data shows it isn't supported anymore If another theory hasn't come along yet, you don't keep one that isn't supported by data until a new theory is formulated!

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by olorin hamfast

Keep Looking Up

They tell us that so they can pantz us@!

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I TOTALLY disagree! You throw it out if new data shows it isn't supported anymore If another theory hasn't come along yet, you don't keep one that isn't supported by data until a new theory is formulated!

So... where's the data that God created the world? Or that the world was created by anyone, for that matter? Oh, that's right - the bible. Never mind...

[olorin hamfast]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

They tell us that so they can pantz us@!

lol they tell us lots of things. Iwish theyd tel us how to get tickets for a flight on janet air

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

So... where's the data that God created the world? Or that the world was created by anyone, for that matter? Oh, that's right - the bible. Never mind...

What does that have to do with what I said?

[olorin hamfast]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

So... where's the data that God created the world? Or that the world was created by anyone, for that matter? Oh, that's right - the bible. Never mind...

Hypotheses are if then statements and are challenged daily. Some stand to the test and others are replaced by more widely accepted answers. Because one person or interest group wants to make a stink about how health tobacco smoke is for infants and spend alot of money on quasi research, doesnt mean its accepted. I have to side lotesse on these. All of these for now. i hope my acute sense of humor did not offend anyone , even you, snowdog.

[olorin hamfast]

DOnt throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because I cant prove cigs are dangertous to infants doesnt mean im gonna run out and buy a pack and burn it in the nursery.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Rian

I TOTALLY disagree! You throw it out if new data shows it isn't supported anymore If another theory hasn't come along yet, you don't keep one that isn't supported by data until a new theory is formulated!

OK, I did mispeak (mistype?) somewhat. But in the vast majority of cases, the data doesn't unequivocably show that it isn't supported anymore... it just shows that it doesn't seem to cover one case or another, in which case you try to adapt your theory to cover the abnormal case until you come up with something new. You don't just throw out a theory that explains most cases because one case isn't explained yet.

Yes, counterevidence does make you discount a theory. And I'm sorry if I implied that it doesn't. But you try to adapt the theory, not just toss it out. Until a unified explanation comes along that is better. For examples: Ptolemy's epicycles that explained Mars' retrograde motion until Kepler/Copernicus replaced the theory of geocentric, circular orbits. Or, adaptations of Newtonian physics to try to cover the errors that were explained by Einstein.

Although this is getting off-topic, because this doesn't apply to evolution until we see some direct counterevidence.

[Curubethion]

Listen, there's no direct evidence that atheistic evolution occured. It seems possible, although logically it's self-contradicting. How? It's simple. If you believe in atheistic evolution, you believe that there is no spiritual world, only a physical one. The laws of the physical world state that you cannot create something out of nothing. However, if this is so, how did anything start in the first place??? Therefore, it's self-contradicting. If you do believe in a spiritual world, then an eternal being is possible, because the spiritual world is not bound by the physical laws. Notice I haven't discounted Theistic evolution (evolution steered by a deity).

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Evolution is based solely on scientific research - while creationism requires the belief in god and does not fit into what the scientific evidence shows us.

I would disagree with this (I just found this quote on the very first post). There is no way to prove evolution, ergo it is a belief, ergo ID has as much right to be taught in schools as it.

[olorin hamfast]

I believe you to be an agitator. What have yu got against evolution?If you knock it dont use it. in exemplia: tell it to your physician at your next rectal exam. You cant prove that god or anything inthe bible exists other than the bloody parts or the sining and the whoring, so by your own definition, why teach it? Evolution is the basis of all systematics in classification of living organisms. You cannot say 'woe' to evoltuion but then say 'hey that classification system is real handy, billy bob'. It doesnt work that way. GO on a fossil hunt someday and tell me those fossils were made 5000 and seven days. ANd take this argument back to the 18th century, Aristotle.

[Curubethion]

What have you got against creationism?? Or theistic evolution??
I did not say I had anything against evolution. What I have an issue with is atheistic evolution. And no, I don't necessarily believe in Young Earth Creationism. That's a stereotype.
And yes, by my definition, you can exclude creationism from schools. But that would also mean that, to be fair, you would exclude evolution from schools. That sounds fair to me.
BTW...what's wrong with Aristotle? (And he wasn't 18th century!)

[olorin hamfast]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

What have you got against creationism?? Or theistic evolution??
I did not say I had anything against evolution. What I have an issue with is atheistic evolution. And no, I don't necessarily believe in Young Earth Creationism. That's a stereotype.
And yes, by my definition, you can exclude creationism from schools. But that would also mean that, to be fair, you would exclude evolution from schools. That sounds fair to me.
BTW...what's wrong with Aristotle? (And he wasn't 18th century!)

You just like calling people atheist or something and you dont like athiests. Maybe everyone is an athiest. Maybe Jesus was a closet case atheist. I dont know. What I do know is there is no such thing as an athiest evolutionist: the two ists cancel each other out. Evolution is for everyone my friend, even Gollum. Remember him? Creationism is unfortunately the booby prize for people with closed minds. Sorry forthat one, but its true. Creationism is for sentimentalists who like the idea that the earth was made in 7 days. Im sorry again, its just not FEASIBLE. It is a convenient mistake and now a lie designed to allow the scripture to continue, to have teeth, fear factor extrordinaire. Not that I dont like the bible, it just does not apply anymore. Im not afraid. Evolution stands alone and together: with Physicists and Hindus, Muslims, Jewish People, Druids and so forth. The idea that man is the center of the universe is the main reason all the earths resources are being plundered and our great mother earth is dying and will soon look like MARS(the planet). Inthe bible, man comes first then women, then the animals and mushrooms and so forth. SO it implies that we are doing gods work by ruining evrything for our own use. Well, my curious friend, back when the bible was written, there seemed to be a plenty of everything around for our common use: trees to build our houses, sheep for rack of lamb, magic mushromms for imagining things unreal and saintly, water for laundry and to pee in, and it all was very convenient to just take; in the old west we call it frontierism. Go to a wild natural area, plunder it to smitherines and move on to the next area and plunder that the same way, HAlelujia. But that approach is no longer that practical. we are running out of places to plunder.. out with the old and in with the new. Like I say Dr, SJ Gould from Harvard is your answer and our salvation, my friend not Dr.Phil
O kee do kee?