Evolution

Yes I believe in evolution, doesn't everyone?

 

I think if you read this thread you may be shocked.

 

What is striking to me, in reading through the various postings against evolution, is how skeptical and exacting they are when it comes to the theory of evolution, but how little evidence they present for an alternative theory. The notion that we aren't talking about genesis here, because that's a different thread is a copout. To my knowledge, genesis presents the most sophisticated alternative to the theory of evolution--which isn't saying much in favor of alternative theories. So-called scientific creationism and Intelligent Design don't include much in the way of refutable scientific propositions. They consist almost entirely of critiques of Darwinian evolution. So far, evolution is supported by a convergence of a large amount of evidence from a variety of disciplines: geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, and genetics. So far it has stood the test of refutability: no rabbits in the Cambrian. For creationists to disprove evolution, it seems to me that they need to do more than to say that if there are gaps, a supernatural explanation must be true. What alternative scientific theory explaining so much empirical evidence and generating refutable hypotheses has been advanced by the creationist/ID camp?

 

The OP asks evolution, yes or no and please give reasons. It does not ask if you don’t believe in evolution please give an alternate theory.

In what way? Myself, I did not express that I disbelieve evolution because I believe in Genesis, I said I don’t believe evolution because I think evolution is flawed and I would not believe evolution even if I believed the Bible was hokum. Which is kind of the case, seeing as I believed that evolution was hokum before I ever even started looking into the Bible.

You seem to be saying that if someone doesn’t believe evolution to be true, they have to be a creationist or believe in ID but it’s not an either or proposition, someone can just disbelieve evolution and they don’t need to even have an alternate theory. Just one can know that 181,582 minus 181,394 isn’t 181,123 just by looking but may not know the true answer.

 

To me it's the complete opposite. Evolution makes perfect sense. Everything is changing. Mount Everest has risen a few inches since I've been alive. Africa and South America are drifting apart and fit together like a puzzle pieces. The thought that species don't change along with everything else goes against everything that I've ever experienced.

 

I was not trying to invalidate your beliefs, just trying to point out why I don't agree with them.

Okiefreak was saying that to disagree with evolution one would have to have an alternate theory and I was just pointing out that doesn't have to be the case, that one can know an answer to be false without having to know the true answer or have an alternate theory.

As for change, change does not have to be evolution, unless by evolution you mean that because I'm a day older than I was yesterday, I have evolved from yesterday to today, then by that definition I would have to say evolution happens every day but that is not how most would define evolution.

 

No, Okiefreak was just pointing out that so far evoloution meets the test of a good scientific theory, offering a plausible explanation of the known facts, providing empirically testable and refutable hypotheses confirmed by evidence from several disciplines. Your basic criticism seems to be that it is "man's truth" and, like all scientific theories, is fallible. I can live with fallible theories, because I think they're the best knowledge we have. Okiefreak was also suggesting that the fussy, bureaucratic insulation of the alternative theories removes them from comparative evaluation, so that people can't see how feeble their view of creation is. And perhaps scientific creationism and ID are not the only alternatives, but they're more sophisticated than anything you've put forward. Granted, evolution needs to(and does) stand on its own merits , not just in comparison to other theories. But it is a useful insight to see how little the opponents of the theory have to offer on their own. It's also useful in judging the critics' credibility to notice the double standard they employ to evidence.

 

You almost got it, now just add MUCH more time and circumstance!

 

Okay, well I'll be, birds are still birds, apes are still apes and humans are still humans, imagine that!

 

I never said that evolution wasn’t “good” scientific theory, I just said I didn’t think it was a correct one.

So? You think that evolution is the exception to the rule?

So, when it comes to God and the Bible they come in second to fallible theories?

This OP does not ask for alternate theories, if you want one that does, start your thread and stop trying to change other peoples OP’s.

Newton’s theories went centuries without any alternate theories or very weak ones at best but now a better one has come a long, so having no good alternate theory for now, does not make the one you have correct or for that matter say anything about credibility of it’s critics.

 

It would appear that you are still missing the "extraordinary amounts of time and circumstance" needed for evolution to happen.

 

Okay I'll look at it again, once again taking ""extraordinary amounts of time and circumstance" needed for evolution to happen" into consideration . . . Nope, birds are still birds, apes are still apes and man is still man and have been that way since they were created.

 

See, when you were merely conjecturing that there was no proof of evolution, you were safe. But now that you have stated that these species have been the same way since they were "created", I think you need to actually prove that assertion please.

 

What's to prove? That they were created or that they have remained the same since they were created?

 

The fossil record shows otherwise.

 

No one knows if it's false or not. You can believe it's false. That's what faith is for.

At what point does change become evolution? After a billion years of change it's only logical everything would be different.

 

Okay, even if one was to believe in evolution, the fossil record shows that after humans "evolved" they have always been humans.

 

So you're saying that in my illustration; "Just as one can know that 181,582 minus 181,394 isn’t 181,123 just by looking but may not know the true answer", I can't know that 181,123 isn't the answer, that I can only believe it's not the answer?

Sorry but I KNOW it's not the answer even though I have not attempted to figure out the correct answer. Knowing how subtraction works, I know that because the first three digits are the same in both numbers of the same length then they can be eliminated, thus meaning that the real answer has to be three digits or less, since the answer given is six digits long it can not be the answer and I know that, not just believe that.

Although evolution is not that simple, the idea that was being put forth that I responded to was that; a person had to have the "right" answer to know an "incorrect" one and I was pointing out that "it ain't necessarily so".

As for the word Faith, many use it incorrectly, the Bible defines Faith this way; Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. (Hebrews 11:1)

Never?

Different yes, evolved not necessarily.

 

as·sured (-shrd)
adj.
1. Made certain; guaranteed.
2. Chiefly British Insured.

ev·i·dent (v-dnt)
adj.
Easily seen or understood; obvious.

Are you saying faith is the same as a wish?

"I wish that would happen"

"I have faith that will happen."

I can understand the sort of catharsis that could come by using phrases like this to describe difficult situations, but to use them as literal answers to actual questions seems oxymoronic.

Is oxymoronic even a word?

 

Perhaps you should re-read that definition, I really don't see how a "wish" is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.