Do you believe in Evolution?

To me evolution SO DOES NOT exclude the presence of God. If there WAS a God, it seems to me (judging on the observation of the countless number of beautiful and wonderful things that exist on this planet and in the universe in general) that that God would be THE most creative thing ever. And evolution seems to be one of the most creative, beautiful ways imagineable to produce such a diverse, wonderful assortment of creatures that exist on planet Earth.

Evolution seems to me to be more of a proof OF God than proof against God.

Or at least a proof of how cool God is.

 

i concur. beanier. so do you think man was a seperate creation? a seperate evvolution even?

 

Off topic:
It is thought that Cro-Magnon's died out or merged with Homo-Sapien-Sapiens. In other words, Cro-Magnon "man", was probably not that creative and borrowed their art and crafts from our lineage.

 

im getting confused. as i remember it, it was neanderthal that died out or merged with cro-magnon?

 

my mistake, you are correct

 

negative- one for all, all for one.

 

The hubble just improved the focus.

 

If there were more than a few odd skeletons, would that be enough?

Earlier I said that I believed that evolution might be improved upon as a theory one day, but it would still be part of whatever theory eventually became law. Even if that law included God.
I don't think there is any doubt that we are evolving right now. There are those who see the gradual disappearance of wisdom teeth as evidence of this. Then there's the appendix, coccyx, and the hair on the back of your neck.

 

Thank God, somebody here understands what a scientific theory is !!! As you point out, the atomic theory is not debated, nor is the Copernican theory - they are explanations of well documented facts, as is evolution. There is NOT a conspiracy of scientists to keep other scientists quiet. And the idea that "loads" of biologists do not accept evolutions is bull. Over 99.7% of them do. And over 50% believe in God. There is NO conflict - science by definition must try to explain things without invoking supernatural causes. That does not mean there is no God. The world is no less wondrous because we understand the science behind its glories.

And I pray to God that we are wise enough to keep it that way for our children.

 

IMHO we should never do anything for god or in the name of god,when we do we end up on a crusade,In a crusade the ultimate goal is the mission you have profest to god to complete,negating all other obsticles in the way.

When we act it should be in the name of goodness and human compassion,that is the only way to be sure no one is harmed,if we dont we end up at war.

 

Well said. Darwin can be right and still not preclude the existance of God. All living things evolve . . . this fact has been proven to my satisfaction. A baby grows into an adult, after all. Maybe in the bigger picture we have been growing into God's "adulthood." Who is to say? The important thing is to be true to what you believe . . . what you feel in your heart to be true . . . this is the best any of us can do. Sometimes this takes faith.

 

true and plus, major evolutionary changes occured over millions of years, not the few thousands years that we have for recorded history.

 

While the planet's orbit and such can be proven, I am sorry---evolution is not an explanation of well documented fact. We simply don't have the tools to observe it as such.


Let us not forgot that throughout our history, many things have been accepted for fact for very long amounts of time, until disproven. How long did Mankind believe in a flat earth?

Only time will tell. Its been a relatively short amount of time since the theory of natural selection was even brought about. Not one person here can go so far to say that it will not be completely debunked in the future.

Why? Because its not something that can be proven by our current technology.

 

I quite agree with anyone that says we have no solid proof that evolution did in fact occur. BUt there`s something else to ponder. I`ve seen no proof that there is a GOD. Anti-evolutionists are fond of saying...it`s all conjecture...there is no solid proof....no chain of evidence. While I`m inclined to agree...the same could be said for religion. Someone, or a group of someones....wrote some books...ie, the bible, the koran...etc. Poppycock. Prove it to me.

 

If you read my posts throughout here, I've said similar things, albeit less directly.

 

That is what you CHOOSE to believe, not what the evidence says. You have to look beyond "Darwin On Trial", which repeats arguments that were dispensed with 50 years ago.

 

we are evolving every day
wether its in software, metal's,agriculture and faith(s)
to me that question is the same as
"Do you believe in walking"

people adapt to there enviroment always have always will
with "God's" help or not

 

What you choose to believe however, cannot be proven. Just because one feels its fact, doesn't make it so. There is NO FACTUAL PROOF! I don't have to quote any books or anything else to say that. Unlike the Copernican theory, it cannot be proven with today's technology. Evidence supports a theory, but doesn't make a fact.

Do you think because you believe its so and its a standing, popular THEORY, that its fact?

Just because arguments thus far have been torn apart, doesn't make the THEORY as fact. Look at the bigger picture. This is a relatively new theory. You cannot prove, or disprove that it will not be debunked sometime in the future.

 

Well said!

 

You mean, plenty of "evidence."

Proof is a very strong word, and often misused.

 

my bad

 

this is difficult to explain, and I think that many here truly don't understand the word "evolve". The only thing I can come up with is:

Take a long image..say 100,00 feet in length representing a time line. Now lets say this image is pasted with a gradient color from a pure color which is unknown (beginning of life) to pure white (now). Now, lets cut out about a million slices out of that image of unknown length. Lets say that 1/100,000 of an inch represents 10,000 years. I know the math doesn't add up , I don't care, just follow my idea.

You understand now that we have a long timeline with about 1 million missing pieces and that each 1/100,000 of an inch represents roughly 10,000 years.

Now, from a far distance looking at the image we can see a distinct difference from one point of the gradient to another point on the gradient. However, our range of sight isn't wide enough to see the beyond those two points. Now, we have to close our eyes and move in either direction to a point beyond one of the previous points (am I confusing you yet?)... now we have to figure out where we are and where we were with complete understanding that we have missing pieces of unknown length and we have no idea where we are in relation to our previous point other than that we are beyond the point in one direction.

Now, you tell me where the begining is..

 

And therein lies the rub. That is the current view of what science is, but it was not always that limited. Historically, science was the search to understand what IS, regardless of source, cause, or explanation. That is why those that disagree with blind evolution are rejected out of hand. IF God had a direct hand in the creation of the universe, and us in particular, the current view of science will always reject it out of hand, staying with wrong answers because they categorically deny the possibility of the right answer.

That is also one of the reasons that so few scientists buck the accepted dogma. They are rejected out of hand by most of their "peers", and such a finding is not a good career move. It can be a career ending move. It takes a lot of guts to declare that the emperor has no clothes. And that is not "scientific" either. Competing theories are quite common in science, with people working on and arguing both until one or the other is proved, or at least one is disproved. That is NOT how the evolution debate is handled within the scientific community.

 

How do you explain - BIGFOOT??

 

Bigfoot....sasquatch...same thing heh heh heh.

This thread rocks...makes for great reading and makes the old engine of thought turn...albeit a bit creakily.

 

I have a tee shirt...made in China...coincidentally...that reads..."Cat...the other white meat"

 

This thread is a very good read

I agree with the comments about atomic theory. Theories are our way of trying to make sense of the world, and actually understand it the best we can. There are still an awful lot of things we don't understand and personally I don't think we have a chance of understanding everything. But the more we can understand, the better.

So, theories are an attempt at understanding the world we live in. Thought processes behind theories normally follow: "Hmm, thats interesting, <insert entitiy> does <insert activity> when <insert condition>... I wonder why that might be?" It is, therefore, impossible to make a theory based on somthing we do not "understand" already. i.e. unless we scientifically understand a higher power, they cannot be a part of a scientific theory.

For example, a model of an atom was created which showed the atom as a fundemental particle. For the application, it worked, but some things were still not understood when all of a sudden electricity came along. We understood that atoms existed (or at least all evidence points to that), but we did not know about electrons. So, we expanded the theory stating the atom was not fundemental, but consisted of a nucleus and electrons orbiting around it.

If we had no evidence that the atom existed, and no model of the atom, how would we determine the existance of electrons within the atom?

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't make a scientific theory which basically says "God did it", because that would totally defy the point of a theory. Evolutionists have got into what's almost becoming a holy war against creationalists, when really they're both on equal ground. Only one of them can say they have a theory, which in reality counts for next to nothing in the debate.

People really shouldn't have faith in theories. By doing so they are becoming subjective and therefore less willing to accept evidence against their theory. Once you loose the objectiveness, it is no longer a theory but a beleif, and thats were science ends.

Oh and I'm with sizjam with teaching both topics. Its a shame that most people qualified (if you call it that) to teach R.E. are in fact inherantly biased (how many unbiased theologians have you seen teaching R.E.?).

 

Bigfoot was real, probably...

You know about those 3 foot humanish creatures recently found in Indonesia? Supposedly they lived up until about 10,000 years ago... So there's Yeti mythology in China, and I believe they have found caves with large humanoid creatures in China, either that or actual human remains, can't remember which... But there was some signifigance to the find, can't remember what...

But if humans could cross a land bridge, what about Yeti, or large humanoid creatures, if you prefer. And what if bigfoot/sasquatch/yeti were just another example of monkey/human relatives that disappeared around the same time period? Long enough ago to not be around anymore, close enough to exist in folklore... The small creatures in Indonesia were part of local folklore about 'small humans' that lived in caves that people would take food to...

I've thought about calling archealogy depts. of universities in the Northwest with that theory and telling them to check out caves for bigfoot skeletons, but am too lazy, don't want to sound like a crank, and I don't know what discipline I should call anyways...

Makes sense to me, though.

 

Because evolution might not be a complete theory... There is also a theory called 'punctuated evolution' which basically says that evolution might happen relatively quickly, with a small mutation or something like that that gets passed on because it works so good, not necessarily a gradual upgrading, if you will.

And think about the factors needed to produce fossils... very specific conditions that only happen every so often... most everything just decomposes straight away... the amount of fossils is very scarce compared to the total number of life forms that have existed on this planet.

And there might be 'missing links'... Like chicken sized dinosaurs that have feathers, I believe they found a snake with tiny little back legs that were useless and shriveled, etc...

 

i think you would have to be a believer in order to teach the bible. in england the schools still teach RE. as a separate subject. firstly there is no such thing as separation of the church and state, and secondly the English are resistant to change, and rebellious of being told what they can and cannot do. i think that in most schools now they try to teach about the origins and beliefs of all the main religions, but a portion just stick to Christianity. in the US. the constitution dictates that religion cannot be taught at all, and therein lies the rub (whatever that actually means!). that because as a 'theory' creationism has some major advantages over the missing link theory, the scientists, themselves accept the possibility of 'intelligent design'. that has given the 'bible belt' a chance to raise its banner and purport it to be a real scientific theory. aloha

 

All the species on earth have nearly similiar genetic codes.Scientists have observed mutation in experiments,yet a complete species change has not been observed.This makes me beleive in the jump and spurt theory of evolution.I dont think relegion can argue with science as relegion is a guideline for self-development and interpersonal relationships.Jesus never tried to explain the universe in scientific terms.I have a lot more to say about the the perception of time,but I will do that in another post.

 

As has been said here and before. There is nor real conflict or dichotomy between religion and science, unless either goes into the realms of literal simplicity and ideological dogma, in either or both directions.

Everything we choose to believe, no matter how 'factual' has an element of faith in it. How do we know every scientific fact is, in fact? We don't for sure. "It can be repeated, shown as evidence, etc." Yeah, to an extent, so does religious experiences.

Oh, b.t.w., for those that don't know. I am a scientist and a Christian. I have no problem with either. I do have a problem with the narrow-minded dogmatism and the arrogant, though, in whatever area of thought.

 

Religion might not be able to argue, but logic sure can.